Out-Tech in the Church – Section 3

Section 3 of Part 7 – Out-Tech in the Church

I think that even if you ignored everything in this whole blog except these sections on out-tech in the church, it would still make the point I have been trying to make all along, which is that you have some investigating to do in order to take responsibility for the state of the church that you may think you have been being so loyal to by refusing to hear anything less than positive, complimentary praise for.  I don’t think these stories should be brushed off as isolated incidences, so in order to emphasize the point I am going to bring up another story that I’ve been told.

Another person gave me her story which I will quote here:

“It began in January 2005. I arrived and paid for my total Tech Estimate, over $100,000 to put me onto OT7.  I was a Power Plus Completion and raring to get onto R6EW.  The service I started (and never finished) was ‘Preps and Eligibility.’

 “First I was told I had unflat objectives.  I didn’t believe it, but I went along.  The auditor overran me on these processes by at least a couple of hours despite my protest, but we got through it.

 “I was told my NED was unflat even though I had attested to NED Case Completion at ASHO.  I really protested, but finally agreed to try it.  It went terribly.  I hated it.  I complained.  I felt guilty about complaining.  I felt like a “dog PC.”  I don’t know how many hours went into it.

 “I was forced to do a PTS Rundown.  I protested like crazy.  I absolutely said no.  I finally agreed, almost kicking and screaming.  It went awful.  Later, in a D of P interview I was told it should never have been run on me.  I was offered no recompense for this.

 “My FPRD Basic Form was fine overall.  My auditor was Paul Guthrie, a very experienced Class 6 auditor who was here on an internship from CC Int.  I didn’t feel like this was a necessary action, but I enjoyed it and had nice wins.

 “I had a Green Form.  It was OK, but had problems FNing.  I thought I was FNing quite often but the auditor said I wasn’t.

 “During this entire 2 year process, I always had trouble FNing.  So often I would tell the auditor I thought I was FNing or thought I EPed on something.  There were many hours spent on this exact issue.  Many correction lists were run for many hours.  Oftentimes I finally FNed on something such as ‘shouldn’t have been taken up in the first place.’

 “At one point I was given a SerFac Handling.  I didn’t know why, but again, ok, let’s just do it.  I would EP very quickly on the SerFac process, but we always had to follow it up with the NED process.  It was terrible.  I hated it.  I complained.  But I still had to do it.

 “The worst nightmare was the Elig questions.  It would have been ok, but I could never FN on anything.  I know I’m exaggerating, but not much.  When I felt like I was done with something, the auditor would re-check the question, put buttons in, but the FN just didn’t happen.  I thought I should be FNing but the auditor said no.  What ended up happening was that I would dredge up every overt I could ever think of under the sun moon and stars, overts that I was sure were uncharged, overts that had been run before.  I felt like I was telling my auditors my whole life story.  It wasn’t like a process where you answer the question and get an ack and it’s over.  No, it was NOT like that at all.  During the buttons, the auditor would ask me what I was thinking, so I would find something to say and the auditor would invariably take it up.  I just kept letting it happen because I thought we would eventually get through it.  I just kept thinking I’m going to be on my R6EW one of these days.

 “Another worst nightmare was that when I had no overts to tell and nothing was reading, or maybe sometimes it was reading, I don’t really know, I would tell about my uncertainties as an auditor.  This got blown up totally out of proportion.  I was really searching to find overts.  So my uncertainties on calling FNs came up.  At one point, I did have an overt of knowingly miscalling an FN.  That part was fine with me.  I owned up and did my conditions, but this whole FN thing became such a huge deal.  I ended up being made to re-tread my Class 4 Internship.  I was made to write letters to old PC folders which said I was unsure about the FNs I called on those PCs.  Not only was it embarrassing, I didn’t fully agree with it, but I did it anyway.  My reasoning for agreeing to it was that I really thought they were FNs at the time, but maybe they didn’t really fit that new revised definition of an FN.  I was told I had to do this and retread the Class 4 Internship, and video 3 PCs to a full passing video from the Sr CS before I could come back to finish my elig questions.  When I left to go do this, I was down to less than an intensive left.

 “I had burned up my entire bridge.  All the intensives that were earmarked for my OT levels were gone.  My life savings was gone.  I even burned up money we had intended for my husband’s auditing.  I felt guilty about it, but he had so much wanted me to experience the joy of the OT levels because he is OT5 and wanted me to be there, too.

 “There is more to the story.  The ruds at the beginning of almost every session was a nightmare.  I would walk in feeling great, insisting that my ruds were in, but no FNs.  Then, of course, I would get anxious about it which made it worse.  This problem added many hours.  It went on during this whole time.

 “Once I had some hours with one auditor who insisted I had a withhold when I didn’t. He robotically applied the commands which are intended to get the person to give up the withhold.  It was quite degrading.  He wouldn’t let up.  He would say things like, ‘I know there’s a withhold there, so dig it up.’ (Words to that effect) Well, I’m an auditor so I knew I wasn’t going to get out of there until we found something to run and flatten it.  First I kept insisting that there wasn’t anything and that something else had made it read, but I knew that was never going to fly.  But there really wasn’t anything.  I’m sure I looked BIs (bad indicators) because I wasn’t happy and I was so insistent and sure.  But I just kept ‘looking’ until I found something we could run and we ran it.  But it was NOT the thing that read.  That whole cycle was invalidating because I was NOT hiding anything, so I ended up feeling like the auditor must think I WAS hiding something and I finally got it off, so now the PC must feel better getting that overt off.  That was NOT the case.  I was just glad to be out of there.  After that session, I told the D of P, I never want that auditor again.  But then as time went on, they needed that auditor to audit me again, so we had a big comm cycle over it and I gave in and let him audit me again.  I actually liked my auditors.

 “Oftentimes, during the sessions, the auditor would have me take a break and eat snacks.  This was a ‘solution’ to the FN problem.  I suspected that’s what was going on.  I honestly thought (this is just my own speculation) that the auditor was seeing my ‘FNs’ but I believe that because of being videoed, the auditor would not call my FNs because they would be invalidated by whoever would watch the video.  I honestly thought that.  So we would have to work at having my FNs be ‘acceptable.’

 “I want to add that never have I had trouble with FNs before.  Plus my body was in good healthy condition and I was happy in life (except for this problem).  Honestly, except for this situation I had nothing going on, no out ruds in life.  There was NO reason I shouldn’t be able to FN.

 “I always FNed at the examiner.  To be honest, I was determined not to red tag.  It’s not that I thought about other things when at the examiner.  I just always found something good to think about the session.  I would say to the examiner, ‘I like my auditor,’ or something like that and I would FN.  In retrospect, I was probably so happy to have finished a session!  AND I knew what it would mean to red tag–more correction lists!

 “I kept insisting that all I wanted was my R6EW.  I probably whined every day to my auditors about that.  I was only willing to go through all this because I knew I had that to look forward to.

 “There is probably more to the story, but this is what I can think of at this moment.  One thing I know–I’m clean!  I’ve had every overt I’ve ever thought of, run and cleaned and cleaned.  Here’s another consideration.  If you look through my folders, my overts are pretty normal.  Please don’t think I’m trying to say I’m perfect–far from it.  But in this write up, I’m trying to make a point.  I’m not ethics bait.  I’m more the kind of person who goes overboard trying to tell overts and thinking everything I do IS an overt.  I’m generally more of a guilty type person than a person who is constantly justifying.  But I did come here as an upstat.  This should never have happened this way, and I should have never let it happen.  But the series of out tech is almost too incredible to believe, especially at the ‘Mecca of Technical Perfection.’  I think that’s why I went on ‘hoping.’

If there is any thought here while reading this that it is because the pc wouldn’t cooperate, or the pc should have just dealt with it and continued to answer the commands until the F/N was obtained and stopped complaining or protesting, here is something  I want to remind you of:

“But there are ‘auditors’ who don’t study and drill hard enough to become real auditors. And there are C/Ses who don’t know their business and who don’t keep up their study and are too lazy to FES or read sessions or cram their auditors.

“There are an awful lot of excellent auditors and many very fine C/Ses. But in some local areas, where verbal tech gets going and ethics is out, the quality sags. And there you have NCGs [No Case Gains] and slow pcs and ‘failed cases.’

“Want to know how lazy your C/Ses and auditors are? How many NCGs and failed cases do you have around? If you have any at all, tech in your area is out.

“So do not send to find the real who when cases bog or ‘fail.’ Don’t blame and repair cases. Repair the auditors and  C/Ses.”

LRH – HCOB 26 Oct 1975, C/S Series 95, “Failed” Cases (Tech Vols, Subject Volume 1, page 299)

Do you think RTC is the epitome of Standard Tech, KSW and all that?  Do you think that obviously, the buck would stop at RTC and they of course would KNOW C/S Series 95 (above)  and every other reference concerning how to get a pc to really win — that they would stop at nothing to handle this gross out-tech situation?

Here is the account of the husband of the woman I quoted above, as to what happened when he tried to get this situation corrected:

“After 2 years, 250 hours of auditing and $100,000 down the drain Anita was lower toned and further DOWN the bridge than when she went to Flag.  She would come home crying 1/2 the time.  I decided to ask her some questions about her auditing.  What I determined was that she was being delivered gross out tech.

“I sent a letter to RTC demanding (politely) that her folders be pulled, FESed properly, that the out tech be corrected and the Flag auditors and C/Ss involved be crammed.  I got a feeble response stating that they (RTC) had no intention of reviewing her folders but that the senior C/S at Flag had assured them that this was now handled.

“I got a call a few days later from April, Anita’s DofP who said she had an R Factor from the senior C/S regarding Anita’s cycle.  She said, and I quote, ‘The senior C/S would like you to know that we have done nothing technically incorrect. Your wife has withholds.’

“I was so stunned that I just hung up the phone.  Are you kidding me?  250 hours of auditing and you can’t pull a friggin withhold?  And you blame the PC?

“About two days later I got a call from Dave Foster, our long time reg at Flag.  He info’d me that Anita needed to buy another couple of intensives.  I told him flat out that his org had gross out-tech, that he friggin well knew it, and that he wasn’t getting another penny until it was handled.

“I never heard from him again.

“After that I put Anita on the cans and did a Questionable Auditor Repair List on her.

“Basically we found that hundreds of F/Ns had been bypassed, she was being audited on Dianetics after already being clear and at the core of the “withhold” was that she just couldn’t seem to not-is well enough to succumb to their squirrel definition of a Floating Needle.

“Lots of other technical goofs showed up, but the above are the basics.

“At this point I started talking to a 25 year veteran Class VIII about all this shit.  He informed me that Anita’s case was not unique.  That many of the people he’d sent to Flag over the past five years had been similarly butchered and that RTC was handling NOTHING.

“We decided that the only way to handle the situation was to ask for a refund, and jar them into confronting that there was indeed out tech at Flag.  They didn’t seem to give a rat’s ass.  They gave us back the money we had on account.  On the refund they just had one of their lawyers send us a letter stating they had no legal obligation to refund anything.

“Shortly after that we received an SP declare that was utterly libelous.

“A point worth mentioning is that prior to this, I knew absolutely nothing about any Freezone or independent movement or any of the abuses of Int Management or David Miscavige’s crimes.”

This is completely disgusting.  Words cannot express how put off I am by the actions of the group I once belonged to.

After finding out this story and many others, most of which I have not mentioned in this write-up, this is my conclusion, unequivocally: RTC and the Church of Scientology, in its current state under its current management, as shown by its current actions, is a SUPPRESSIVE GROUP and a SQUIRREL GROUP.

And I say that, notwithstanding the fact that there are a lot of great people in the church who intend a lot of good and want to do the right thing.  To interpret what I say about the church being a suppressive, squirrel group to mean that I think everyone there is a suppressive or a bad person is to miss the point.  My point is that at the top of management of the church these days are orders and demands of altered tech and policy to the effect that it is gradually destroying what is good in the subject and it is completely altering the purpose of the many good people who are in it and the many good people who have left it.  The greater majority of us got into it with the purpose of really making a positive effect on the state of this planet.  That is being made impossible with the alterations and misapplication of tech and policy and with the prioritization of money collected over quality and speed of delivery of its real product.  These alterations are being enforced on its people who don’t even realize that this is what is occurring.  Furthermore, the subject is actually being used harmfully and a lot of well-intentioned people are being very hurt because of it.

That is what has made the church a suppressive, squirrel group and that is the reason I am no longer a member of it.

Next…Abuses and Outright Cruelty

2 thoughts on “Out-Tech in the Church – Section 3

  1. Anonymous says:

    This is now ‘standard tech’ ! I have had the C/S come back several times stating the F/N wasn’t good enough and had to re-do. Got sick. Repair lists, re-do, etc. Yup I am PTS to Flag ! How can you FN on mean questions, auditor acting like Mafia and so many buttons.

    I had never looked at the internet till a few weeks ago. Now I feel bad for every legal case I helped make go away.

  2. out-a-there says:

    Subject: Tech At Flag
    Ok, Dave, you started this subject, now I can go on and on for hours!
    When I was there, I came out of every session BI’s. Yet, every time at the examiners, an FN was called!

    Sometimes I’d give a BI origination with it. In such a case, you can’t call an FN, but I was taken aside and told I was “trying to red-tag” in order to get more attention!

    This was actually immediately before the new FN definition came out. So, maybe that was an answer to people calling FN’s that weren’t there. Then I was convinced to try again, because the problem with FNs was now handled. I went and it wasn’t.

    Someone once commented to me that an ARCX needle resembles an FN. That may be, but my thought was that people were over-calling FNs so the auditor would be happy, the CS would be happy, the D of P would be happy, the stat collector would be happy….

    One of the times I complained I was told: “I know you are lying because this is the Mecca of Technical Perfection: we don’t make mistakes here.” And, oh, yeah, what’s that other slogan? “Friendliest place in the world”. I can think of way more accurate slogans…

    Thanks for listening!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s