Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

A printing history of the materials of Scientology  &
     Some proposals to solution for dubiousnesses found

(Scientology: The History of a Policy Letter)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“HCO PLs and HCOBs are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.”
        
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)  

This page is dedicated to background information of policy letters and other issue-types, and how they are supposed to be treated. What rules exist for cancellations, how they are revised, and who gets to see what. All sorts of information that is about to get lost. Here you have the story from someone who has been closely involved in the Mimeo Section at the Flag Land Base (Clearwater, Florida). More information about that and the fate of Flag Mimeo here (separate window).

 
Index:

   
Basic information about issues and more in particular HCO PL's
  What are HCO PL's & HCOB's, who writes them & some historical background
               - Signatures established (1959)
- Prelude (1961)
- HCO PL's & HCOB's explained (1970)
- 1974-1980: ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL), ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB)
- 1982-1988: ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PL's & BPL's
- 1991-1993: ‘HCO Administrative Letters’ cancelling HCO PL's & HCOB's
- (1) The irony of directions found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”  (or  HCO PL's and HCOB's are written by anyone again, but are attributed to L Ron Hubbard regardless)
- (2) HCO PL & HCOB issue-type formats reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?
  What are ‘original mimeo print-offs’ and its relation to the Qual Library
         (Includes:  Qual Library;  A change in practice (1991))
  Information about revising, about distribution & initials found at the end of references
  What does it mean when an issue is cancelled
 
Changes and questionable practices observed, with proposals to solution
  Understanding the importance of having different issue-types and what it means!
         - LRH ED's  vs  HCO PL's
- Orders of the Day (OOD's)  vs  HCO PL's/HCOB's
- An inconsistency: ‘Ability article turns HCOB’  (HCOB 5 Nov 67 “Critics of Scientology”)
  Inconsequency regarding writer/compiler/typist initials during the late 80's
  Changes incorporated since 1991 in original publication dates of issues 
         - Change in approach of (re)dating issues since 1991
- Examples of changes
- The restoring to original dates is not being done consequently
  Consideration and various proposals to solution  
         - Changing the issue authority of old information
- Changing dates on HCO PL's & HCOB's
                (Includes:  Questionable practices in the early 80's)



 
Basic information about issues and more in particular HCO PL's

Back to Main Index What are HCO PL's & HCOB's, who writes them and some historical background

At some point in time not all HCO PL's & HCOB's were written solely by L. Ron Hubbard.  In present day these particular HCO PL's & HCOB's are either cancelled or reissued into another issue-type.

 
Go back Signatures established (1959)

The original rules for adding signatures on references were as follows:

        
“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED* should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
        
 
When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
 
 
When I have not seen or okayed a policy letter or a bulletin or a Sec ED but it is published by the authority of a held post such as HCO Sec*, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (actual name of person issuing) HCO Sec (or other title)’.
 
 
The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)
 

As a rule those references not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard would now indicate that it was done ‘for L. Ron Hubbard’ following the name of the actual writer, sometimes it also said ‘authorized by L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘by order of L. Ron Hubbard’.

“HCO PLs and HCOBs require passing by LRH or the full authority of International Board members as well as the Authority and Verification Unit.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

 
Go back Prelude (1961)

At some point in time the whole thing was set up as follows:

        
“HCO Bulletin ... That means TECHNICAL. If originated by me it is on white paper with red ink. ...
        
 
HCO Policy Letters are now my administrative policy line. They are received done in green ink on white paper. ...
 
 
An HCO Information Letter is now to be issued by me only and is blue ink on white paper. ...
 
 
These three are the total of just my mimeograph line to HCO's, Central Orgs and Franchise Holders and the public as indicated. ...
 
 
Here is a complete list of all types of HCO issues, their appearance, authorship and their handling.
 
 
HCO Bulletin. ... By LRH. ...
 
 
HCO Policy Letter. ... By LRH. ...
 
 
HCO Information Letter. ... By LRH. ...
 
 
LRH personally written issues are on WHITE paper, rough texture, good quality. WITH COLOURED INK.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 4 Feb 61 “Types of Letters Established”)
 

This appears however very quickly abandoned. We find any of the above issue-types written also by other persons than L. Ron Hubbard. This at least as early as 1962. There may have been a plan to create additional issue-types for these matters written by some other person than L. Ron Hubbard. It just appears that this was not realized at that time. Probably it was not found very practical to implement that at that time. The technology was subject to full research and things could rapidly change.

 
Go back HCO PL's & HCOB's explained (1970)

These are the 2 most important issue-types within the Church of Scientology. They are assembled in large volumes, ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (assembles all HCO PL's and administrative references), also referred to as the ‘green volumes’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ (assembles all HCOB's and technical references), also referred to as the ‘red volumes’.

        
“HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter. This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic*, org* and administrative technology. These regardless of date or age, from the know-how in running an org or group or company. The bulk of hat* material is made up from HCO PLs. They are printed in green ink on white paper. They are filed by consecutive date. More than one issued on the same date are marked Issue I, II, III, etc. Every org must have a full master and bulk files of these or it won't be able to make up hats or hat packs* for staff or know what it's doing and will fail. It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.
        
 
HCOBs – Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. They are red ink on white paper, consecutive by date.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)
 

In January 1974 it was then decided to to reserve these issue-types for L. Ron Hubbard alone (see next section for details). To that effect HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of” was revised reissued on 23 Jun ’75, adding the text Written by LRH only.” for each of these issue-types. This is still what it says in the present version in use of this policy letter.

 
Go back 1974-1980:  ‘Board Policy Letter’ (BPL), ‘Board Technical Bulletin’ (BTB)

Now we were in for a vast change. In 1974 it was found that these issue-types (HCO PL & HCOB) were to be reserved only for L. Ron Hubbard writings. To accomplish this 2 new issue-types were created:

        
“BOARD POLICY LETTERS, color flash—green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from those HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I) Abbr. BPL.”
        
 
“BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETINS, color flash—red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from those HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed red on white for technical bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These board issues are valid as tech. The purpose of this distinction is to keep LRH's comm lines pure and to clearly distinguish between source material and other issues and so that any conflict and/or confusion on source can easily be resolved. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I) Abbr. BTB.”
 
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))   

Both these new issue-types were thus established in January 1974 by BPL 14 Jan 74 I “New Issues” (anyone have an actual copy of this or its revision, please contact me).
The next step, respectively in December 1974 for non-LRH HCOB's and in October 1974 for non-LRH HCO PL's, projects were started to have these either cancelled or if it was judged that the information they conveyed was still valuable to have them reissued on either the BTB or the BPL issue-type format.
The original issue date was maintained when these were reissued, but we find it followed with the notice that they were reissued or revised reissued on these respective issue-types on so and so date. For example the not written by L. Ron Hubbard HCO PL 27 Sept 63R “Pink Sheets” was reissued as BPL 27 Sept 63RA (Revised and reissued on 16 June 1974 as BPL) “Pink Sheets”. Be it noted that the bulk of these noted revisions were of a very minor nature indeed.
Either way this is the reason why you will find BPL's & BTB's carrying a date predating to January 1974, but factually all BPL's and BTB's they were issued somewhere during 1974 & 1979. These cancellation and reissue lists were themselves also issued under the BPL's or BTB's issue-type format and distributed to all other organizations around the globe enabling them to update their files (see a listing of these in link at the end of this section).

As the HCO PL and HCOB issue-type format were a senior issue-type theoretically they could not be cancelled by BPL's or BTB's. Nonetheless this was done on a really grand scale. Apparently because these particular HCO PL's and HCOB's were not written by L. Ron Hubbard made that permissible. It is interesting though that HCOB 14 Jun 77 “Paid Completions Simplified” even states specifically that: “BTBs can not cancel HCOBs.”  LRH.  But by then it was 1977 and these projects were done and over with.
In spite of all that work done on these BTB's and BPL's, the lot of both of these issue-types were considered void by 1980. Since they have been labeled forbidden (covertly) and must be destroyed (shredded).

Today you simply will not find a single copy of these issue-types anywhere in any of these Scientology organizations! Strictly spoken this is actually very strange as such an action is not at all advised by L. Ron Hubbard! It says in HCO PL 3 Mar 82 “The Qual Library”: “It's an org* library and you just get your hands on at least two of every pack on tech or policy or anything else that has ever been issued.”  LRH  (from lecture given 5 Sept 71 “A Talk on a Basic Qual”). See, it doesn't say anything about them written by L. Ron Hubbard or someone else!
If anyone out there has some more inside and factual information about the fate of the BPL and BTB issue-types, then please throw me a line!

BTB's and BPL's that listed all the HCOB's respectively HCO PL's that were being cancelled/replaced in this 1974-75 revolution  (pop-up window)

 
Go back 1982-1988:  ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ (SPD) cancelling HCO PL's & BPL's

(More background information about SPD's you will find here, separate window)

A couple of years later we are once again being reminded of that:
        
“HCO Policy Letters (Green on White), and HCO Bulletins (Red on White) are issues reserved for the writings of L. Ron Hubbard Founder. ...
        
 
HCO PLs which do not fit under the rule above which are currently in existence are under review for full cancellation or reissue as Scientology Policy Directives if warranted. Any which are cancelled will be cancelled or reissued as Scientology Policy Directives as they should never have been issued as HCO Pls in the first place and to issue their cancellation in HCO PL would just perpetuate issuing non-LRH PLs.”          D/WDC* Chairman
(from ‘SPD 4’, 2 May 82 “HCO PLs & HCOBs, Who Writes Them”)
 

So now we have SPD's cancelling/replacing HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard, and BPL's. Indeed we find a variety of SPD's being issued during 1982-88 that did exactly that (see list of these in link little further below).

An example is ‘SPD 17’, 27 Jun 82 “Understanding Copyright Notices and How to Use Them” that gives the notices:
        
“(Cancels and replaces HCO PL 10 Sept 81 COPYRIGHT POLICY CLARIFICATION. An HCO PL was the wrong issue type as this issue was not written by LRH. It is correctly reissued here as a Scientology Policy Directive per SPD 1 A NEW ISSUE TYPE SCIENTOLOGY DIRECTIVES.)”
        

It can also be seen from this list that a couple of SPD's in 1989 were again being turned into HCO PL's after previously having been cancelled by SPD's as being HCO PL's.
Later on this ‘SPD 4’, 2 May 82 “HCO PLs & HCOBs, Who Writes Them” was considered superfluous because other issues written by L. Ron Hubbard already had reserved the HCO PL issue-type format solely for L. Ron Hubbard, and it was therefore cancelled on 20 Oct ’87. The SPD cancelling it didn't mention anything about that SPD's were not going to continue cancelling non-LRH HCO PL's. Anyhow since 1991 we have another issue-type actually cancelling non-LRH HCO PL's.

Complete list of Scientology Policy Directives that are either cancelling or are being cancelled given in chronological order  (pop-up window)

 
Go back 1991-1993:  ‘HCO Administrative Letters’ cancelling HCO PL's & HCOB's

The issue-type HCO Administrative Letter (usually referred to as HCO Admin Letter) was created for to “Contain checklist of issues, admin data of an informative nature.” and they “do not contain policy or orders.” Practically this amongst other meant that once at the end of each month such an issue was released and it listed any and all issues of any issue-type that were released during that very month. Copies were send to the various organizations around the world as a checklist for all Qual Librarians, with this list they could find out what was missing in their files and arrange it being send to them. HCO Admin Letters was not an issue-type of any particular authority, but one time during 1975 they had in fact been replacing (cancelling) various HCO PL's. All these were directly relating to “admin data of an informative nature.” (see list of these at link below).
Complete list of HCO Admin Letters from 1975 that cancel/replace other issues  (pop-up window)

This appears to have been a matter of to reissue these on the correct issue-type. During 1991-93 however they were now cancelling a whole arsenal of HCO PL's and HCOB's dealing with any kind of subject for the sole reason that they had not been written or approved by L. Ron Hubbard to be issued under that issue-type. Many of these had even been issued under his name as if he had actually written them. They said that they “were falsely (or incorrectly) issued as policy (or HCO bulletin).” (see summary list of these in link below).
Complete summary list of HCO Admin Letters from 1991-93 that cancel other issues  (pop-up window)

 
Go back (1) The irony of directions found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”  (or  HCO PL's and HCOB's are written by anyone again, but are attributed to L Ron Hubbard regardless)

We do find some rather contradictorily directions in this HCOB in regards to signatories on references. It has been said that this HCOB was written by L. Ron Hubbard, having himself involved with to “spent seven months spotting areas where there has been trouble or failures, evaluating them and discovering the alter-is of original materials and issues.”. By examining the validity however of all these 24 listed corrections (“A:” to “X:”) the authorship of this reference may not be all that evident (see my extensive analysis about that here, separate window).

Anyhow this HCOB conveys some interesting directions regarding attributing authorship, which in actual fact confuses the whole thing tremendously, and even violates previously established guidelines about these.
We find in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”: “It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it.” and then let it directly follow with “If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.”. See, they are contradictorily. I address this in great detail here, separate window).
In a sense it is very odd, as these lines have been overlooked by so very many people. This is actually what this reference itself states, but it is also more than just adequately confirmed through an extensive scrutinous examination of the actual publication record of how HCO PL's and HCOB's were to be dealt with (and have been) from here on out!

The reality we are thus facing here is that HCO PL's and HCOB's are once again not written by only L. Ron Hubbard. The problem we are having now is that one has not been straightforward about informing us about that!
Either way it is a downgrade compared with the status quo prior to January 1974, a time when HCO PL's and HCOB's were written by anyone, but were given a correct and adequate signature designation at the bottom of them. (see previous section ‘Signatures established (1959)’, reference HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)

 
Go back (2) HCO PL & HCOB issue-type formats reserved for L. Ron Hubbard?

One could wonder why in particular HCO PL's still were being issued written or compiled by others as a variety of references explicitly have pointed out that these are to be reserved solely for L. Ron Hubbard writings? L. Ron Hubbard gave us already an indication for this in HCO PL 4 Feb 61 “Types of Letters Established” which was written by him. It was however not being followed up on back then. This may have been so as no issue-type was available or created for the non-LRH material. Later it was initially followed up on when the issue-types Board Policy Letter (BPL) & Board Technical Bulletin (BTB) were established in 1974. Then in particular during the early 80's we find again many HCO PL's written and/or compiled by for example ‘Executive Director International’ (ED Int), or some ‘Board of Directors’, and various. Later again these were cancelled because the issue-type format HCO PL was to be reserved for L. Ron Hubbard once again. It is a lot of going forth and back about this! Then in 1988 we see for example the issuance of HCO PL 13 Sept 88 “The Positioning Era” which was due to that “LRH advised in 1979 that it be issued as a Policy Letter” (these publication notices are only found on the original mimeo print-off, you will not find in the version as printed in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes).

Another angle of this is the practice of issuing references that in fact were compiled or written by others, and to reissue them and then attribute them to L. Ron Hubbard (discussed in detail on my page ‘Non-LRH turns into LRH?’, consult here, separate window).

We simply have to conclude that the rule was not consequently being enforced. So do not be surprised to encounter various of these incidences on this and my other pages.

Go to main index

 
Back to Main Index What are ‘original mimeo print-offs’ and its relation to the Qual Library
(Includes:  ‘Qual Library;  A change in practice (1991))

I frequently use the term original mimeo print-offs on my pages and it has to be understood what this actually means for proper understanding of how the system actually works.  
‘Original mimeo print-offs’ (I actually invented this term) are individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected and published in volumes. Issues printed in the Mimeo Section of the organization during the early years (until approx. 1980) was usually done on a mimeograph machine (aka as roneograph or simply Roneo), later they were run off on an off-set printing machine. These are the issues that you can say are the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. After this was all done they were then distributed amongst the staff, and send to the other Scientology organizations as per the routing indicated on these issues (usually 2 copies of the new issue were send to each org). If the receiving organization was a larger one and the issue a BPI (Broad Publication Issue) or a Remimeo, further copies may be mimeographed for use by staff and students of Scientology. Originally they were printed and distributed from St-Hill in England, later this task was taken over by FB (Flag Bureaux), this senior organization originally was located at the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida, in 1984 they moved to their present location in Los Angeles.
Usually these original mimeo print-offs were only for internal use in the organization, but various are known to have been included in dissemination packages, course packs and similar. Technical updates/revisions (primarily HCOB's) have been regularly send to field auditors (auditors not under contract in an organization), also they have been included in the so-called HCOB update packs published during the early 80's.


Qual Library

Two copies of each of these issues are filed in the Qual Library of the organization (excepted are only confidential or limited distribution issues). One is marked as MASTER COPY, and may not ever leave the files or the Qual Library area. The second copy may be used to make xerox or additional mimeograph copies. These issues in the Qual Library are free for consultation by students of Scientology or its members.

        
“When a fair copy is sent to an org from Flag, copies are run off for their staff, and for the staffs of their nearby orgs and for their students as they wish. They keep the stencil on file for additional copies as needed. They file copies in their Master and general files in each org including the receiving org.
        
 
The orgs receiving fair copies have considerable discretion in how many copies they run off, how many they send to smaller orgs (but they must ensure 1 copy for each staff member in the local org of Remimeo issues), and whether they issue to students or not. But they must keep the stencil for reuse and file it in their own Master files along with a copy clearly stamped MASTER COPY.”
(from BPL 14 APR 69R “Bulletin and Policy Letter Distribution”)
 
 
(fair copy’: A copy of a document made after final correction. - World Book Dictionary)
 

Compilations of these issues have been published in book form such as:
    ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (administrative issues),
     first published during 1970-74 (9 vols)
  ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ (technical issues),
     first published during 1976-1980 (12 vols)
  ‘The Original LRH ED's’ (compilation of ED's written by L. Ron Hubbard),
     published in 1983, they were collected in binders (3 vols in 2 binders)
Prior to inclusion in the above mentioned volumes and binders, we find that these issues have been retyped, and to that effect they witness of an additional set of typing initials (explained in detail in next chapter) indicated at the bottom of each individual issue. The issues as found in these old volumes were still basically exact duplicates of the original mimeo print-offs. This is also the case for the revised release of ‘The Management Series: Volume 1’ & ‘Volume 2’ (1982-83), and the revised release of ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986). Any revision notes are also still present in full.
But we we're in for a change when we entered the 90's (see here below).


A change in practice (1991)

The 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes is an entirely different matter. We find for example that about all of the sometimes extensive revision notes simply have been stripped from these issues. And thus this means that the publication history of these references have been removed. You will also look in vain for copyright notices and composer/typing initials for each individual issue.
About all the other revision versions, cancelled issues and other issue types not included in these volumes exist only as original mimeo print-offs, but a variety of these are usually found in a standardly organized Qual Library. Of course during the years people have not always been following the rules and may have taken the MASTER COPY and for some reason it was never returned and so on, and so you may not always find the exact version of an issue you have been looking for. The Librarian was to see to it that the files were used correctly and that you signed out for any issues that were temporarily moved out of the Qual Library.
These present days however we face another problem as the standard Qual Libraries are physically disappearing from the Scientology organizations. All you find in them are the newest of materials in book form, and thus you may have a hard time to find any original mimeo print-offs.

This implemented change in practice however was also affecting course materials. In the previous days course packs were compilations in where all the individual references were directly pulled from the Mimeo files according to the accompanying checksheets, and these references were thus all original mimeo print-offs. These days at least the regular course materials are printed up like books for use by the public.
An evident example of how very wrong this all can get you can consult here (separate window).

More data about Qual Libraries is found on page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2) or About ‘Information’, Primary Rundown, and Qual Library”, chapter “The importance of the Qual Library”. Consult here (separate window).

Go to main index

 
Back to Main Index Information about revising, about distribution & initials found at the end of references

 
Go back How revisions are indicated and recognized

An effective way to find out in what manner HCO PL's and other issue-types within the Church of Scientology are revised and how changes are incorporated is by studying and comparing various releases of particular issues which have been subjected to such revisions. Most references however are seldom or never revised. Are there some specific rules how to establish if changes have been made? How do I recognize these changes? Well, there are some practical rules, yes. And you do recognize these changes.

When an issue has been revised it automatically receives an ‘R’ following the date (for example: ‘HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965R’). Also the exact date of when this specific revision was incorporated will always be noted directly under the original date of the reference (for example: ‘REVISED 31 DECEMBER 1979’). If it is revised again it will get an ‘A’ following the ‘R’ (for example: ‘HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965RA’). A third revision will be indicated as ‘RB’, a fourth ‘RC’ etc ...
The above however is as per the standard that was introduced by HCO PL 2 May 72 “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”. The ‘R’ indication may have been used as early as 1971. Prior to that there was not a real standard in use. Revisions may have been reissued under a new date, noting on them that they were cancelling the previous issue dated so and so. Or they may have kept the original release date on them and then it was noted on them for example Corrected and Reissued date so and so.

The actual revisions are also as a rule indicated on the issues themselves. One rule is that any and all deletions are indicated as ellipses, like this: ‘ ... ’. Another is that any and all additions and changes are printed as script, like this: ‘ script ’.
Sometimes when the changes are very extensive it may say: “Revisions not in script.”.

 
Go back Distribution & initials found at the end of references

Now if a new issue has gone through the approval lines and when it is finally printed. It will be send to any and all as indicated on the routing on that particular issue. This is always found on the upper left corner of the first page. HCO PL's for example if it would say ‘All orgs’ it will then be send to all Scientology organizations around the world. This is then received by the LRH Communicator of that local organization, who then makes sure it will end up in their library, where Scientology public may freely consult it. These issues are the original mimeo print-offs you may say. These had also information on them such as the originator of that issue, who may have approved its publication, who typed it out (initials only) and the copyright notices. This is always found at the end of any reference.

Example:
    
      L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
  LRH:sf.jp
Copyright © 1962, 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
   
What does it mean:
Written or compiled by ‘LRH’ (L. Ron Hubbard),
typed out on a typewriter by ‘sf’ (initials), re-typed by ‘jp’,
first issued in ‘1962’, reissued or revised ‘1967’

Another example:
    
      Ken Urquhart
LRH Pers Comm
      for
      L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
  LRH:KU:rr.aap
Copyright © 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
   

This may also appear as:
    
      Dinah Day
HCO Leading Steno WW
      for
      L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
  LRH:js.rd
Copyright © 1969
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
   
What does it mean:
Written or compiled by ‘Dinah Day’ for ‘LRH’ (L. Ron Hubbard),
typed by ‘js’ (initials), re-typed by ‘rd’,
issued in ‘1969’

To correctly interpret these initials you have to read them together with the other notices. There is also:  (underlining is mine)
        
“When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)
        

‘The Organization Executive Course: An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’ volumes were first released during 1970-74. All the references found in these volumes were basically exact duplicates of the original mimeo print-offs. This was changed in 1991 release of these same volumes that now had taken away part of the publication information. The revisions were not any more printed in script, deletions were not indicated with ellipses. Additional info about revision notes worthwhile knowing is almost always removed. Also the copyright notices at the end of the references are gone, as are the writer/compiler/typist initials. Sometimes even the R, RA indications have been removed, in that case you will not be able to establish that once a revision had been made on that particular issue.

Then basically since early 1977 disputable practices got introduced and implemented in regards to signatures found on references (especially those attributed to L. Ron Hubbard). See for details my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2) or About ‘Information’, Primary Rundown, and Qual Library”, chapter “Introduction to this page”.

Go to main index

 
Back to Main Index What does it mean when an issue is cancelled

When an update of some issue is released it will say on that issue that the previous version of that issue is cancelled (this is always noted with exact issue-type and date). That means that the new issue is in fact replacing the older issue. The old issue is simply not in use anymore, it can not be referred to and it can not be enforced by anyone. It has no value as being a policy whatsoever. Still this old issue would be filed in the Qual Library of the organization but this is for reference only. This now cancelled issue would receive a stamp saying: “CANCELLED”, it also should note what issue cancelled it or is replaced by it. In this way you can always find out how things were before and why it had changed, and exactly when it had changed. In addition you can easily establish if at any time an error had been made and even reverse all this as you would have all the data right there.

There is an additional way how certain data in policy letters can get superfluous:
        
“HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy letters.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 5 Mar 65 II “Policy: Source of”)
        
This would mean that if certain data in older policy letters is contradicted in policy letters of a later data, that this data that is contradicted as found in the older policy letter is not in use. Often such HCO PL's are referred to in the revising new HCO PL.

If you actually look through the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes you will find even in there a variety of references not being in use anymore. The references contained in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes are organized in chronological release order (issue date). This is done like that so that people can see easily how the technology progressed. Now, for a full understanding of this development even those references written by L. Ron Hubbard that in present time are replaced by revisions or other references are for that reason found in those volumes. You can very easily recognize these references. On the first page of the reference in the top right corner it will clearly say “CANCELLED”, “REVISED” or “REPLACED”. Directly under this notification there will be a referencing to the issue that is to be used in its place, in addition it will say in which consecutive volume and on exactly which page you will find this.
An issue that has received the notification “REVISED” may indicate that the the original version of that issue is not necessarily cancelled, it could just mean that only certain information has been updated. You can find a few of such instances in the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. For example:
   HCOB 4 Apr 72“Tech Div Primary Rundown”  &
HCOB 4 Apr 72 (Revised 30 May 72) “Primary Rundown (Revised)”
You can also see that the revised version did not receive the ‘R’ designation following the date either. When you consult these issues you will find that the latter issue complements the earlier one. Both need to be consulted for a proper understanding.
It is to be noted here that this is not anymore like this in the 1991 release of these same volumes though. They have no notifications in the upper right corners anymore. Also these original versions of issues appear to have been removed out of them, for example you don't find HCOB 4 Apr 72“Tech Div Primary Rundown” in these volumes, only the latest revision of the issue.

 
Changes and questionable practices observed, with proposals to solution

Back to Main Index Understanding the importance of having different issue-types and what it means!  (LRH ED's/OOD's/‘Ability’  vs  HCO PL's)

There exist some confusion regarding this. Frequently I encounter individuals that have seriously mis-understood why we are having different issue-types! Any kind of issue-type has a certain purpose and value. They have been created at one time or another to fulfill some intent or purpose. More importantly they also have a certain authority. Certain issue-types have a senior authority. That means that these have the final word about something of how one is to go about things. Also some issue-types are only valid for a certain period of time. Now, I find that frequently people are mixing up these issue-types and ignore their actual authority and also their actual validity.

 
Go back LRH ED's  vs  HCO PL's

It appears that various think that Executive Directives (ED's), and especially LRH ED's (those ED's written by L. Ron Hubbard) have the same or a similar authority and validity as HCO Policy Letters.

        
“LRH EDs, L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directives, earlier called SEC EDs. These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)”
        
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976))   

        
“HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE POLICY LETTER, written by LRH only. This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic, org and administrative technology. These, regardless of date or age, form the know-how in running an org or group or company.”
        
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976))   

The gross error made here is in fact that any ED (including LRH ED's), basically have only a 12-month validity (or when fully complied with) after which time they simply expire! They do “... carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions.” To be once more in force they have to be reinstated or reinforced prior to be valid for another 12-month period. ED's are issued under a number, a reissue would receive ‘-1’ following this number, another reissue ‘-2’. They can also be cancelled prior to expiring after 12 months. This can be done by issuing a ‘-#’ which often adjusts the previous release, and/or informs us about that which is still in force.

An example that can be named is ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sep 76 “The Solution to Inflation”:
    ‘LRH ED 284-1 Int’, 3 Jul 77 “The Solution to Inflation - Amendment”
‘LRH ED 284-2 Int’, 28 Oct 77 “The Solution to Inflation - Amendment for UK”
‘LRH ED 284-3 Int’, 9 Jun 78 (13 Jun 78) “Processing Cost Increases”
‘LRH ED 284-4 Int’, 20 Nov 78 “LRH ED 284 Int Reinstated”
‘LRH ED 284-5 Int’, 8 May 79 “Book Price Increases”
, etc... (a 284-11 is confirmed to have been issued)

Another is ‘LRH ED 339R Int’, 13 Mar 82 “Revision of the Birthday Game 1982/83”:
    ‘LRH ED 339R-1 Int’, 10 Oct 82 “The Make-Break Point of an Org”, etc... (these continue to this day, not particularly as number ‘-2’ & ‘-3’, but with a series that is using 339R & 339R-1 and even 340 as an advice)

We can say that LRH ED's have a temporary policy validity, it is policy till it gets superseded, cancelled, reinforced or till it expires.

Now, why do we find some of these original LRH ED's in for example ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes expired or not? This has made some people believe that they are permanently valid policy of some sort, and have to be followed! Well, this is incorrect, the only authority that expired ED's have is as being an advice and really nothing more. And an advice is by far not policy! So in the case of LRH 284 & LRH ED 339R the original versions may work as an advice or can even function as an example for the ‘-1’, ‘-2’ & ‘-3’ or other that followed.

Various examples are known from LRH ED's that received a permanent policy validity and then consequently turned into an HCO PL. This happened for example with ‘LRH ED 44 Int’, 2 Dec 69 “Freeloaders” that turned into permanent policy on 13 Oct ’72 and became HCO PL 13 Oct 72 “Freeloaders”.

So, please do keep LRH ED's and HCO PL's  separated!!

 
Go back Orders of the Day (OOD's)  vs  HCO PL's/HCOB's

        
“ORDERS OF THE DAY, 1. a type of ship's ‘newspaper’ containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)  2. orders of the day, issued by any Commanding Officer to his own unit daily and may contain current activities, ethics orders, etc., by others, contains the schedule of the day, serves as a crew briefing. OODs are also put out to their own orgs by Executive Directors or Executive Councils in Scientology orgs. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R) Abbr. OODs.”
        
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976))   

 
Go back OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - Overview

There exist a total of 81 OOD's items that were issued as HCO PL's and a few also as HCOB's. The bulk of these HCO PL OOD's (73) were issued in the period 4 Aug-5 Nov 80. You can consult various OOD's/HCO PL data on the pop-up window that I created. This list will give you a very thorough overview of various, and can be useful to revert to while going through my OOD's analysis found below. This can be consulted here below:  (pop-up window)
    List of HCO PL's/HCOB's originally issued as OOD's

The 73 HCO PL OOD's were issued by Sherry Anderson who during that time was performing as a CMO Compilations Missionaire(CMO:Commodore Messenger Org’. Senior Scientology organization)

Initially it said at the bottom: Later it became (starting with HCO PL 21 Sept 80):
      L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
      L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
  Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
CMO Compilations Missionaire
  Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
  for the   Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
  BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY        

But a few of them say:  (ex. HCO PL 27 Sept 80 “Org Officer”)
      L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
  Compiled and edited for issue by
Sherry Anderson
  Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
Especially worthy of notice is that it says ‘edited’. Appropriate portions were picked from these original Orders of the Day. Sometimes they even got mixed in with various paragraphs taken from Orders of the Day from another date.

One should also realize that these Orders of the Day were in fact directions for these so-called Sea Org members and forwarded the purpose that they had. The Sea Organization is a senior echelon within the Scientology organization. Then by issuing these as HCO PL's you may very well be addressing the wrong target. As it appears a variety of these OOD's were also issued as Flag Orders by the same Sherry Anderson. Flag Orders may be seen as the equivalent to policy letters (HCO PL's), but for use only by the Sea Organization.
The OOD's as they were reissued in the Flag Orders were called ‘OODs Series’ and they were numbered. Directly foregoing the title of these was printed: ‘*Y*A*C*H*T* *A*P*O*L*L*O*’.

Now, the very first one to appear in this series was ‘FO 3793’, 14 Sept 80 “Spectatorism”. This one appears also as HCO PL 13 Sept 80 “Spectatorism”, although with one difference. Namely the FO version has 4 additional paragraphs. They are quite revealing as to their target, which are Sea Org members.

The phrases added read:
        
“You belong to the SO or you don't. If you do you're at cause over the various situations.
        
 
So we define an SO member the way you do an OT - At cause over Life, Thought, Matter, Energy, Space, Time, and Form.”          LRH
 
And:
        
“You are actually insulting yourself to insist that I personally make whatever advances are made on vital actions of the group.
        
 
If what you are trying to do doesn't happen it's a poor comment on your OTism.”          LRH
 

You can see this in its orginal context in below link:  (pop-up window)
    HCO PL 13 Sept 80 “Spectatorism” with text from ‘FO 3793’, 14 Sept 80 “same title”
We may however safely assume that the FO version is much closer to the original text as published in the OOD's than the edited HCO PL release issued only one day later.

In the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes this HCO PL is found as HCO PL 14 Jan 69 II “Spectatorism”. And then you have to make up your own mind about for what group and forwarding whose purpose. And if in fact it is proper to simply remove the Sea Org referencing and then make it policy for all Scientology staff.


The initials at the end of these reissue of OOD's releases always were as follows:
      BDCS:LRH:SA:dr
  (‘dr’ = main typist, a couple of times you find instead ‘ns’ or ‘bk’)

Well, this issuing OOD's as HCO PL's/HCOB's. We have no confirmation whatsoever that L. Ron Hubbard had decided upon such a thing. They were ‘Accepted and approved’ by some ‘BOARDS OF DIRECTORS’. Other persons than L. Ron Hubbard were responsible for that and had decided to reissue them like that. The question that has to be asked here is: “On which grounds were these reissued under the HCO PL and the HCOB issue-type format, which have a ‘senior authority’, and such a long time ‘after’ they had been originally written?”  The point is that if L. Ron Hubbard has not seen any necessity to do that during his days, then why would someone enforce that in our days, and after he had gone off the lines!

If you think about it: ‘Orders of the Day’. Do notice that it says ‘Day’, meaning for that particular day! Whereas HCO PL's had a permanent validity! Now why would these old OOD's items be issued then as policy letters?
Early revision notices say:  (ex. HCO PL 3 Sept 80 I & II)
“(The contents of this policy have been taken from an LRH OODs item of (date) and are now being issued in policy form to bring forth the wealth of data formerly issued in the Flag ‘Orders of the Day’.)”
But is solely this an appropriate and sufficient reason for turning it into a senior authority issue-type such as an HCO PL?


The initials found at the bottom of these OOD's reissues changed in later years. In 1983 they appear still attributed as issued by Sherry Anderson (see ‘The Management Series: Volume 1’ & ‘Volume 2’ (1982-83)). By 1985 these composer initials had changed, 20 of these HCO PL OOD's are found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), see index on page 749/50 (all the entries depicting LRH OODs). For example HCO PL 4 Aug 80 “Justice Correct Application”. In the original original mimeo print-off version it had said:
      BDCS:LRH:SA:dr
Whereas the version as found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986) says:
  LRH:CSI:sa.dr.gm     (CSI:Church of Scientology International’)

Realize that all these policy letters as found in these book volume releases have been re-typed prior to inclusion into this book. Accordingly you always find an additional set of typing initials. For example all the ones in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986) added ‘gm’. So, this explains the second set of typing-initials. Then we see also that ‘SA’ seems to have turned into ‘sa’. HCO PL 13 Sept 80 (Corrected and Reissued 3 Oct 5) “Spectatorism” and HCO PL 27 Oct 80 (Corrected and Reissued 4 Oct 85) “Power Change Violation Repair Formula” even say in their revision notes: “(Corrects signature ...)”. And this basically seems to indicate that Sherry Anderson who was actively involved in carrying out this project and was in fact editing and reissuing these OOD's was demoted to being a simple typist. And the original typist ‘dr’ was demoted to someone who had re-typed it. Obviously this correction incorporated did not state the facts anymore as they actually were! We are also lacking any referrals to Sherry Anderson In these versions as found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986). All of them only say the following:

      L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
  Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

Early 1991 all these OOD's HCOB/PL releases were reissued and they exist today as an HCO PL and/or HCOB carrying the date of the original OOD's (for example: HCO PL 28 Aug 80 I “Cause” (OOD's from 17 May 71) became: HCO PL 17 May 71 “same title”), except for 5 of them which today remain cancelled .We also find that none of these later 1991 reissues make any mention either of the involvement of Sherry Anderson.

 
Go back OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - (1) Cancellations

The first ones to be cancelled were 4 of these original OOD's that had been made part of the Data Series. This was done by HCO PL 14 Nov 90 “Cancellation of Data Series”.
     ‘HCO PL 3 Sept. 80 I Data Series 50
OUT OF SEQUENCE
  HCO PL 2 Sept. 80 Data Series 51
PERPETUATING AN ORDER
  HCO PL 23 Sept. 80 II Data Series 52
FACTS
  HCO PL 6 Oct. 80 IV Data Series 53
OUTNESSES’
It informed us that: “The above HCO PLs were issued by another without the approval of LRH and were not intended by him to be issued as policy letters. These issues repeated material already covered in the Data Series.”  This was written and issued by ‘CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’.

HCO PL 7 Dec 81 “Evaluation” was cancelled by HCO PL 7 Dec 81 “Data Series 54 Evaluation Cancelled”, Cancelled 6 Apr 1982. This cancellation notes say it was: “cancelled as it was erroneously issued as the wrong issue type per HCO PL 24 Sept. 70 RA, ISSUES, TYPES OF and HCO PL 5 Mar. 65, Iss II, POLICY, SOURCE OF. It is being reissued as a CBO, CBO 371 INT, EVALUATION.”.
Notable is that it is still found in full in ‘The Management Series: Volume 1’ (1982) on page 148. Including the notice at the bottom that it was cancelled as an HCO PL and reissued as a Central Bureaux Order (CBO).

Then HCO PL 21 Sept 80 VII “Initiative” got cancelled on 13 Jan ’91 by HCO PL 21 Sept 80 “Cancellation of HCO PL 21 September 1980, Initiative”.
It said: “The above policy letter was issued by another without the approval of LRH and was not intended by him to be issued as an HCO PL. This issue repeated data which is already covered in LRH policy, such as HCO PL 22 May 59, CENTRAL ORGANIZATION EFFICIENCY.”  This was also written and issued by ‘CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’.

And HCO PL 22 Sept 80 “Activity” got cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 21 Sept 91 I “Cancellation of Issues” together with 119 other references.

HCO PL 2 Oct 80 II “Distractions and Production” is assumed to have been cancelled as it does not appear in the later 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, and no original mimeo print-off of any reissue has been found.

So, at least 5 of them were noted to have been cancelled due to that it was “issued by another”, “without the approval of LRH”, and were “not intended by him to be issued as an HCO PL”. Now what about all the other OOD's items issued as HCO PL's/HCOB's by Sherry Anderson? There exist in fact an additional 68 of those! Seems to me that the same goes up for all these as well. Then was this “data/material ... already covered” somewhere else? May be, may be not, but does it actually matter? They are still “issued by another”, “without the approval of LRH”, and were “not intended by him to be issued as an HCO PL”. See, we have no information nor any reason to think that these other still valid 68 reissued HCO PL's/HCOB's would have received a different treatment or arrangement.

 
Go back OOD's turn HCO PL's/HCOB's - (2) And 2 reinstated

The cancelled ‘HCO PL 3 Sept. 80 I, Data Series 50, OUT OF SEQUENCE’, got reinstated later on as follows:
     
‘HCO PL 14 MAY 1971 
ISSUE III
REVISED 20 JANUARY 1989
 
(Reissued 24 December 2000 to add to the AKH Series)
 
Admin Know-How Series 22-2
 
 OUT-OF-SEQUENCE’

Although the reference adjusted/corrected the OOD's date to 14 May 71 (it noted 15 May 71 in the original 1980 release), it is obviously the same OOD's. The reference itself does not state either that it was reinstated, just that it was reissued, as if it never had been cancelled. That it says ‘Reissued ... to add to the AKH Series’ is in fact misleading, as this makes you think is the reason for its reissue. Prior to the ’80's it always said clearly reinstated on issues if this was the case.
Now does this reissue (9 years after its cancellation) mean that now all of a sudden this “material” was not “already covered” somewhere else? Or was it found that it was not “issued by another”, published “with ... the approval of LRH”, and was “... intended by him to be issued as an HCO PL”? These are strange happenings and occurrences, we are not clear about these things. Are some people just doing some things as they see fit?
Just realize that it was cancelled 5 years after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard, then another 9 years later (=14 years after his demise ) things again are reversed!


What happened to HCO PL 13 Oct 80 “Ethics Change (& Danger Condition)” (original OOD's of 11 & 12 Apr 72) tells a story all by its own. Cancellation info for this issue is not found anywhere, but we see that this HCO PL was split and re-published as 2 separate HCO PL's on 13 Jan ’91. These were:
      HCO PL 11 Apr 72 II “Ethics Change” (consists of the 3 paragraphs as found in this section in the original 1980 release, and adds the last 4 paragraphs of section with the heading “Danger Condition”)  &      
  HCO PL 12 Apr 72 “Handling Danger Conditions” (=“Danger Condition” from ’80 release, last 4 paragraphs of this section were skipped). Revision notes say: “(Reissued 13 January 1991 to correct the date of the issue and to delete an LRH OODs item which was incorrectly incorporated into this PL and has now been issued as HCO PL 11 Apr. 72, ETHICS CHANGE. Correction not in script.)”.  
It is probably so that this Sherry Anderson made this HCO PL 13 Oct 80 compilation from both of these OOD's. So, it appears that they were simply restored to their original form by these later releases.

The story does not end here. Namely we do not find this HCO PL 11 Apr 72 II (Reissued 13 Jan 91) “Ethics Change” in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. And that is because it was cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 21 Sept 91 I “Cancellation of Issues”, and accordingly it was not included in these volumes. The story goes on... Then on 21 Aug 2000 it was reinstated. The revision notes say: “(... This policy letter was erroneously cancelled in 1991 and is hereby reinstated)”. One notable difference however is that now it does not note anywhere anymore that this was originally an OOD's item!

Interesting is also the revision that the original HCO PL 21 Sept 80 III “Source to Cause” had undergone on 20 Jan ’89. The 3 first paragraphs used to be as follows:
        
“I've heard it said that as ‘source’ I should handle something way outside my general activity.
        
 
This is a confusion between SOURCE and CAUSE.
 
 
You are CAUSE over your area. Results are the effect of your own efforts.”          LRH
 

In HCO PL 12 Mar 70R (Revised 20 Jan 89) “Source to Cause” it was restored to:
        
“I've heard it said that as ‘source’ I should handle something way outside my general activity.
        
 
This is a confusion between SOURCE and CAUSE.
 
 
Whereas I am source of data, overall coordination and planning, you are CAUSE over your area. Results are the effect of your own efforts.”          LRH
 

I underlined what had been excluded. Not everyone will approve of this edit.
The revision notes said “Revised to restore the original OODs item written by LRH, as data had been incorrectly deleted from it when it was put into policy form in 1980.”
Alright, it says “incorrectly deleted”. Was this in error or purposely done? But we may assume the latter option. After all Sherry Anderson did in fact ‘Compiled and edited for issue’.

 
Go back An inconsistency: ‘Ability’ article turns HCOB  (HCOB 5 Nov 67 “Critics of Scientology”)

In the periodical ‘Ability 199’, 5 November 1967 we find an article entitled “Critics of Scientology”. This article is also published as an HCOB in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VIII, 1966-1969’. We should be aware of that the article is not even included in the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, not as an HCOB and also not even as an Ability article! But we do find a variety of other articles from the Ability magazine in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, in both the 1976-80 release and also the 1991 release. The inconsistency here is why did it turn right away into the HCOB issue-type format, when it was skipped to even appear as an Ability article in these 1976-80 volumes? Why do we have this steep gradient? Was the article missed by those compiling these volumes? Much research was done compiling these volumes (see article in The Auditor (separate window)). It is to be well understood that the HCOB issue-type format has a senior authority in regards to technical issues, whereas an article is just an article that gives us some information! The HCOB had been given the release date of the original Ability article, but it had not been an HCOB until 27 Aug ’87. The HCOB says in its notices: “(Originally issued as an article in Ability 199 on 5 Nov. 67. Issued as an HCOB on 27 Aug. 87.)”. Nonetheless because of the date of the HCOB it has given the false impression to various of having been an HCOB since 1967, when in fact it was not. I have encountered various who were mislead by the date of the HCOB.
An another angle is who authorized it being turned into an HCOB? Was it L. Ron Hubbard? Then it was done 18 months after his passing. Or did he leave some notes about that this should be done? You have to figure out for yourself what is plausible and what not.

An example of an Ability article that turned policy letter is HCO PL 5 Oct 87 “Lonesome?”. Revision notes tell: “Originally published in Ability magazine, circa July 1957, Issued 5 October 1987 as an HCO PL.”. At present this policy letter is in use as HCO PL 5 Jul 57 “Lonesome?”.

Go to main index

 
Back to Main Index Inconsequency regarding writer/compiler/typist initials during the late 80's

Example reference: HCOB 23 Jun 71 “The Secret of Fast Courses”
      Reissued as BTB by ‘Flag Mission1234’: BTB 23 Jun 71 (Reissued 24 Nov 74) “same title”
  Restored to HCOB 23 Jun 71R (Revised 25 Jul 87) “same title”

The initials as found at the bottom of the above references:
      As found on the 1974 BTB version: ‘BDCS:BofI:AL:MH:BW:RG:mh.jh’
      BDCS   =   Board of Directors of the Churches of Scientology
    BofI   =   Board of Issues (approval lines)
    AL:MH   =   Andrea Lewis (‘Flag Mission 1234’ In Charge)
Molly Harlow (‘Flag Mission 1234’ 2nd)
    BW:RG   =   Barry Watson (compiler); Richard Gorman (illustrations)
    mh.jh   =   typists (2)
  As found on the 1987 HCOB version: ‘LRH:RTRC:bw.rg.nt.jsa.ja’
    LRH   =   L. Ron Hubbard
    RTRC   =   LRH Technical Research and Compilations
    bw.rg.nt.jsa.ja   =   typists (5)

We can see that the 1987 HCOB release has 5 sets of typing initials (small characters indicate typists), meaning would 5 persons one after the other have typed this out? If you look at the first 2 sets of the typing initials it says: ‘bw.rg’. We also find these initials in the 1974 BTB version, but as capitals: ‘BW:RG’. Alright, the 1987 HCOB version reverts back to the version as it was prior to the BTB version, meaning we can skip ‘AL:MH’ as these persons were only involved with the BTB release. The following set of initials is ‘BW’ (the compiler of the HCOB), and ‘RG’ (responsible for the illustrations). Then ‘mh’ was the typist (verified) for the original mimeo print-off release, and ‘jh’ was the typist (verified) for the version included in the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. We are still seeing these 5 sets of typing initials in that 1987 HCOB release. Is it possible that ‘BW:RG’ for some reason (mistake or other) were transferred into ‘bw.rg’? Then we are still left with 3 sets of typing initials, which seems odd as the text involved in this reference only exists of a couple of pretty short sentences and words. Another gross illogic here is that the typing initials ‘mh:jh’ are not found in the 1987 HCOB release, and they in fact should have been included, as they are previous typists of this very reference. Instead we see the initials of a later typist indicated as ‘nt’, this could be Nancy Tidman although she was primarily active during the 70's. Anyhow, we are basically facing here an avalanche of illogics.

I would not be surprised at all if indeed various ‘mistakes’ like this had been made here. Various of such projects were taken care of by persons who were lacking the know-how of the task to perform. As I very well recall many areas within the organization always seem to be undermanned. Then if some area was to work on some additional project (added to their existing work overload), then it could result in that little to nothing was actually done till some specific release date approaches. And then all of a sudden the order comes down about to get it done. Very quickly then some all-hands could be assembled to get it done and quick, and well, don't expect that all was carried out correctly if this happens. Something like this happened with the translations projects, it is promoted as if these are done by translation experts or something, well they are not always!

Go to main index

 
Back to Main Index Changes incorporated since 1991 in original publication dates of issues

 
Go back Change in approach of (re)dating issues since 1991

It appears that the rules about how to date certain references were also not entirely set up yet. At least not in 1989, which the following example will show:

      HCOB: “MISTAKES AND PTSNESS”
  Original mimeo print-off says:
     HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MARCH 1989
(Originally printed in Apollo OODs on 19 Oct. 73.)
  Note: Apollo was a ship, OODs is short for ‘Orders of the Day’.
  It was reissued on 17 Apr 1991, it appears as follows in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes:
    HCO BULLETIN OF 19 OCTOBER 1973
(Originally written by LRH for the Apollo OODs of 19 Oct. 73. Issued as an HCOB on 25 Mar. 89.)

We can see that the above releases are only 2 years apart.

It is to be noted that quite a few references changed the date like the one in the above example.

 
Go back Examples of changes

We see the intention of Scientology management to actually restore original release dates and/or when the text was actually written/compiled. Here follow 3 examples:

  1. HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” is presently in use as HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”.
    The HCO PL notices tell us: “Reissued 4 Nov 2001 to correct the date of the issue. This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of ‘23 December 1965’.”
     
  2. HCO PL 13 Oct 72R “Freeloaders” is presently in use as HCO PL 2 Dec 69R “Freeloaders”.
    The HCO PL notices tell us: “LRH ED 44 Int of 2 Dec. 69 reissued as policy.”. This change was incorporated in 1991.
     
  3. HCOB 25 Mar 89 “Mistakes and PTSness” is presently in use as HCOB 19 Oct 73 “Mistakes and PTSness”.
    The HCOB notices tell us: “Originally written by LRH for the Apollo OODs of 19 Oct. 73. Issued as an HCOB on 25 Mar. 89.”. This change was also incorporated in 1991.

Note on example 2: If you look for HCO PL 13 Oct 72R “Freeloaders” in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Volumes’ you are being referred to HCO PL 2 Dec 69R “Freeloaders”. The original LRH ED release date had been adopted as the new date for the HCO PL. In this version we are not anymore being informed about exactly when it turned into a policy letter. Also take notice that this strictly taken was not policy during 2 Dec ’70 until 13 Oct ’72. Changing the original HCO PL issue date is simply altering actual sequence of happenings. In addition, this and quite a few other issues are known by its release date, to change the original date of the HCO PL is only adding to the confusion! To fully understand the significance of this you need to have been intern in the organization, this issue as an example then would have been known as ‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72’. So during 19 years this issue was known as that, and then we are going to change that date? Also in the mimeo filing area, qual library packs, compilation packs (course packs excluded) and yearbooks these are all filed by date. It is obvious that changing these original release dates of such issues is not the smartest thing to do.

The dates of policy letters and various should reflect exactly when it turned into policy or a technical issue to be reckoned with!

 
Go back The restoring to original dates is not being done consequently

For example:

      HCOB: “KNOWLEDGE, DEFINITION OF”
  It is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes as:
      HCOB 25 Jul 87 “Knowledge, Definition of”
(Originally written 11 Nov. 79)
  Why is it not found as:
    HCOB 11 Nov 79 “Knowledge, Definition of”
(Released on 25 July 1987)

Another example is:

      HCO PL “ENROLLMENT IN SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS”
  It is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes as:
      HCO PL 29 Jun 68 “Enrollment in Suppressive Groups”
(Amends HCO PL 28 Dec. 65 of same title)
  Why is it not found as:
    HCO PL 28 Dec 65 “Enrollment in Suppressive Groups”
(Amended on 29 June 68 with the addition of the whole last paragraph, sent by telex)

And a third example:

      HCO PL “PINK SHEETS”
  It is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes as:
      HCO PL 4 Aug 81R “Pink Sheets”
(Revised 30 August 1981)
  Why is it not found as:
    HCO PL 27 Sept 63RC “Pink Sheets”
(Revised 9 January 1973
 Re-revised 16 June 1974
 Re-re-revised 4 August 1981
 Re-re-re-revised 30 August 1981)

And a fourth example:

      HCOB “The Use of Demonstration”
  It is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes as:
      HCO PL 23 Jul 81R “The Use of Demonstration”
(Revised 10 January 1984)
  &
  It is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes:
    HCOB 10 Jan 84 “The Use of Demonstration”
(Also issued as HCO PL 23 July 81R I)
  Why are they not found as:
    HCO PL 15 Apr 72RB “The Use of Demonstration” (or “Demonstration”)
(Revised 31 July 1974 
 Re-revised 23 July 1981
 Re-re-revised 10 January 1984)
    (Also issued as an HCOB, same date.)
    &
    HCOB 15 Apr 72RB “The Use of Demonstration” (or “Demonstration”)
(Revised 31 July 1974 
 Re-revised 23 July 1981
 Re-re-revised 10 January 1984)
    (Also issued as an HCO PL, same date,
  released under the HCOB issue-type on 10 January 1984.)

And an interesting fifth example:

      HCOB “Robotic TRs”
  It is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes:
      HCOB 7 Aug 83 “Robotic TRs”
  Why is it not found as:
    HCOB 4 Sept 80 “Robotic TRs”
(Originally included in a chapter of that title in HCOB 16 August 1971RA, Issue II, Re-Revised 4 September 1980, TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED. The previous version of this reference: HCOB 16 August 1971R, Issue II, Revised 5 July 1978, TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED, was reinstated on 6 August 1983, after which the chapter entitled ROBOTIC TRS was issued as HCOB 7 August 1983, ROBOTIC TRS. It is hereby reissued with its original release date.)

And even as late as 2001 (a last but not least example):

      HCO PL “Inspection and Reports”
  Only available as original mimeo print-off:
      HCO PL 23 Nov 2001 “Inspection and Reports”
(Taken from an LRH evaluation of 5 January 1976.)
  Why is it not found as:
    HCO PL 5 Jan 76 “Inspection and Reports”
(Released as an HCO PL on 23 Nov 2001, taken from an LRH evaluation)

There are more of such instances found. In any case, even if all these would be adjusted as in my above examples, there would be some confusion as they are then going around under 2 different dates.

Also Volume XIII of the 1991 release of “The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology” witness of such inconsequencies. Volume XIII contains the HCOB's dated 1985-1991. L. Ron Hubbard passed away on 24 Jan ’86, this automatically means that he can not have written the HCOB's as found on pages 121-582 on the date they were released (25 July 1987 to 1 May 1991).

Go to main index

 
Back to Main Index Consideration and various proposals to solution

 
Go back Changing the issue authority of old information

Policy letters were in fact written at a certain time and developed in accordance to some problem or situation that existed at that time. Then if it be an evaluation, a telex message, an OOD's, an ‘Ability’ or ‘Certainty’ magazine article or any other communication from L. Ron Hubbard (mostly dating back to the 60's and 70's), then what is the relevance of reissuing this under a senior authority issue-type today? Sure, it may be interesting information, but is it proper to issue it as an HCO PL or HCOB? It could be that some person goes through some material, and then comes across what he thinks is a real treasure, and he may think: “Wow, this is great, let's issue that as an HCO PL!”. But you see, doing such a thing is changing the authority of the information! In addition it is also in fact obscuring the information that already is available in these book volumes (getting thicker and thicker, added information). So, once again, if L. Ron Hubbard did not issue them as HCO PL's or HCOB's in his time, then why is this being done these last 2 decennia's by others in our time?

It could be proposed though to create another kind of issue-type. And you may as well call this issue-type “LRH Advices” (something), which you could use for evaluations, OOD's and similar. You would then give them the date they were originally issued (including the reissue date), you tell what they are, and you give the background information needed to interpret them correctly. Or you may collect any of these OOD's that tell something interesting, compile them and issue them (as they were), and give it the title ‘Compilation of LRH OOD's from the *A*P*O*L*L*O*’ (or something). Magazines articles and such as they appeared in for example ‘Certainty’, ‘Ability’ and various could be reissued in the way they appear presently in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. You should however add that this is a reissue from a later date. Or you may as well do a reissue of all of these magazine articles, and take the complete arsenal of the particular magazine (including the non-LRH material, and publish them as ‘Complete collection of the Certainty magazine’, the same could be done with the ‘Ability’ magazine, and the ‘Professional Auditor Bulletins’ (PAB's). These PAB's for example had very distinctive pen drawings on the cover of each issue. Especially from a historical point of view ‘The Auditor’ is quite interesting. And indeed it may have some use to republish all these things in such a way, but changing the actual authority, and ignoring how policy letters in the early years actually came about... Well, that is most definitely not something that I recommend ...!

 
Go back Changing dates on HCO PL's & HCOB's
(Includes:  Questionable practices in the early 80's)

An additional point is to not confuse persons with ‘restoring’ original dates of when something actually was written. If some data was issued at a later date as an HCOB or HCO PL, then give that HCOB or HCO PL the date it actually turned into an HCOB or HCO PL! Why? Because if you don't it historically will mix up things, and it has! As soon as some data is issued under some senior issue-type, then that is the date we have to deal with it as it actually being some senior data, and not prior to that! Naturally you would note that it was taken from some earlier evaluation, OOD's or other, originally published or written date so and so. This is how it was always done within Scientology, but this has been changed since 1990, apparently at a whim. One should not do these things, and change procedures of how things were done since 40 years (1950-90).

There is also the matter of changing the date of such issues a long time after they in error had been given another issue date. A good example is HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”. It was reissued in 2001 with a new date. The revision notes of that version said: “(Reissued 4 Nov 2001 to correct the date of the issue. This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of ‘23 December 1965’.)”. Accordingly it had become HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB (Reissued 4 Nov 01) “same title”. The question if this is such a good idea to change this back 35 years later. In the interim this issue had become known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65, it was identified with that particular date for so very long! It should have been corrected back then, now it is too late. In my opinion it is adv iced to leave the 23 December date as it was, you just note in the revision notes: “(This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of ‘23 December 1965’.)”.


Questionable practices in the early 80's

Whereas there is still some integrity or goodwill involved in the above practice. It would appear that none of this was present when the official Scientology organization got itself involved with attributing disassociated issue-dates to references, something that was resorted to during the very early 80's on a fairly grand scale. What was the situation here? Why was this done? Well, basically the original written references (mostly they were HCO PL's) were not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard. But the information contained in them was considered valuable. And so during these early 80's we see them reissued under another issue-date and partly rewritten and rephrased. The original compilers demoted to assistants and attributed as having being originated and/or written solely by L. Ron Hubbard.

A selection of examples of references subjected to this treatment can be found on my page ‘Non-LRH turns into LRH?’, consult here (separate window).

Changing the authority (actual authorship) of the reference was pretty much instructed to be done like this by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, see here (separate window). But even this reference it's authorship has been questioned!, and indeed there is a valid reason for that, well supported by a properly and thoroughly performed analysis on that reference from 1977 (consult here, separate window).


I may hope that Scientology International and LRH Technical Research & Compilations (RTRC) may reconsider that what I tell here. My message is that not everything that L. Ron Hubbard wrote or said is meant to be policy or a technical pursuit! Maintain the authority of the issues that was originally given to them, do not change this at a whim!

“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)


You may if you wish forward your views to:

Religious Technology Center International
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 U.S.A.
Phone: (323) 663-3258
Fax: (323) 667-0960

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked.
     BTB:
Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked.
     D/WDC Chairman:
Deputy/Watch Dog Committee Chairman: WDC is an upper management level within the Church. It is an inspection and police organization which inspects the actual management units of the Church and sees that they are established and functioning.
     ED:
Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH ED's are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
     hat, hat packs:
The duties of a post. It comes from the fact that jobs are often distinguished by a type of hat as fireman, policeman, conductor, etc. Hence the term ‘hat’. A ‘hat pack’ is a compilation of issues (HCO PL and any other) into a ‘pack’, this in the sequence as they appear on the course checksheet for that particular ‘hat’ (post or job). This course checksheet itself is placed in front of the ‘hat pack’.
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     HCO Secretary:
Today this is called the ‘HCO Area Secretary’. Usually referred to as ‘HAS’. The HAS is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1) of the organization. He has the function of establishing the organization.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH Communicator:
The person in a Scientology organization who represents and forwards the communications from L. Ron Hubbard and assures that his orders, dispatches, directives, policy letters and secretarials are issued and complied with.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     LRH HCO PL:
This is to stress that this HCO PL was in actual fact written by L. Ron Hubbard and not someone else. See further at ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     ‘The Management Series’:
This is part of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volume series in where the references are instead categorized by subject in a numbered series of issues. See further at ‘The Organization Executive Course’ in vocabulary.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here.
     Qual Library:
Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction).  1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology)  2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual)  3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)
     Sec ED:
Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED. An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard.  
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     third dynamic:
There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations. The ‘third dynamic’ is the urge towards existence in groups or individuals. Also referred to as the ‘group dynamic’.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement