“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

David Mayo project (2):
  ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”
  Main SO ED analysis page
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help me with my research? <<  Consult my want list here !

An analysis of the claims made in this ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”. Please note that various technical aspects are being discussed. This is therefore mostly for the insider that is familiar with the material and the substance of Scientology.

David Mayo project pages:
  (1)   The story of David Mayo (Snr C/S Int 1978-82) - Main index & introduction 
  (2)   SO ED 2344 analysis:  Main SO ED analysis page
  (3a) SO ED 2344 analysis:  The definition of ‘Clear’
  (3b) SO ED 2344 analysis:  Notes on NED for OT's and its relation to ‘Clear’
  (4)   SO ED 2344 analysis:  ‘Training Routines’ (TR's) (includes notes on auditor training)
  (5a) ‘The Bridge to a New World’ (History of the Grade Chart) - a) General overview
  (5b) ‘The Bridge to a New World’ (History of the Grade Chart) - b) Detailed analysis
  (6)   Chronological reference list  &  Dianetic Clear Series list

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


 
Introduction to ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”

Now, what is there to say about such a writing? Can we believe that what it claims and says? If it can be substantiated with various there would be a fair possibility that there is truth maintained in its claims. The only way we can determine such a thing is to investigate what it says and study the references that it refers to. This SO ED (Sea Org Executive Directive) is interjected with various lengthy and short quotations supposedly written by L. Ron Hubbard. The first one we see already on the first page of this writing:
        
“‘The actual situation is that you had a bird dog right in the middle of the control room:  David Mayo. He was sabotaging execs by wrecking their cases. None of this was by accident or incompetence. Of all the crazy, cock-eyed sabotage I've ever seen, man, he was at it. He was not doing Dn and Scn. He was just calling it that and using the patter. His obvious intention was to wreck all cases of persons who could help others.’   (LRH)”
         

I do not know the source of these quotations. They may have been taken from the Flag Condition Order 7138 of 2 March 83 in where David Mayo was Declared a Suppressive Person and Expelled from the Church of Scientology. I actually have once seen a copy of this Condition Order, we had one in the files of Flag Mimeo (one page on that copy was blank I recall, a misprint). I only recall that it had a somewhat similar approach as the SO ED, but I don't remember who had signed it, although I would like to have a look at it again. I know that it has been send out to many persons at the time. If anyone can help me with a copy please contact me!
A note can also be made here about the actual authorship of these quotations. We simply have too many references released around that time which authorship is debatable. It also conforms with that L. Ron Hubbard had disappeared from the public few since about October 1979. These interjective quotations supposedly deriving from L. Ron Hubbard therefore have to be judged by what they actually say.

The SO ED can be consulted in full here (link will open as a pop-up window). Particular sections of this SO ED have been taken and are analyzed in the following chapters.

Go to index
 
‘Mixing Rundowns’ & ‘Torpedoing of a Qual Division’

Further some comments can be made of the section of the SO ED headed “MIXING RUNDOWNS”. It says there that:
        
“Probably the last thing Mayo expected was that a Class 4 auditor would find this out tech or, upon finding it, would report it. Fortunately the auditor did report it, applying the HCO PL 22 July 82 KNOWLEDGE REPORTS, to keep Scientology working. LRH then called for more pc folders that Mayo had been C/Sing and more of the same hideous squirrelling was found.”
         
It goes on with quoting from HCOB 28 Sept 82 “Mixing Rundowns & Repairs” which supposedly was “written by LRH to correct severe out tech that had been committed ... by Mayo”. It then amongst other quotes in the SO ED from this particular HCOB: “Recently one particular (now removed) C/S was found to have an ‘anything goes’ pattern of C/Sing and programming cases. This C/S mixed rundowns one with another into hash and did not do the standard rundown or repair it standardly as its own rundown.”.

2 comments can be made here:

Firstly one can ask why it required some “Class 4 auditor” to get the ball rolling prior to discovery? Bad C/Sing is identified by a consistent track of bad results. Any person subjected to such would display obvious symptoms, he would get stuck in his progress, he would get troublesome, he will catch the attention of various. It says in the section headed “TORPEDOING OF A QUAL DIVISION” (directly following ‘Mixing Rundowns’) that:
        
“Mayo directly supervised the delivery and tech quality of a Qual Div in the area he worked in, which was responsible for the auditing and enhancement of some 200 staff.” and “By actual survey of their pc folders, these staff had made little or no progress up the Bridge for a period of 3½ years -- the time period that Mayo was over the area.”
         
A whole 3½ years prior to discovery and it required a report from a Class 4 auditor to get it started? And by the way we have not calculated with the period 1973-78 in which David Mayo was posted as Flag C/S.

The SO ED notes further:
        
“The cases of these staff had been mis-programmed; the auditors had mostly either given up auditing or had been blown off the lines, and those that remained in the Qual Div were found to be running squirrel ‘pilot’ and ‘repair’ processes that had been invented and C/Sed by Mayo.”
         

The “stable datum” given by L. Ron Hubbard in the SO ED would have been a indicator sufficient enough: “‘A SENIOR C/S IS KNOWN BY HIS NEAREST QUAL’   (LRH)”.

Secondly it is noteworthy that this HCOB 28 Sept 82 “Mixing Rundowns & Repairs” is signed at the bottom with ‘L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER’ followed by ‘Data collected by Cmdr R. Mithoff, Snr C/S Int’ . This is the same person that actually has put together the SO ED and he is also represented in the composer initials of the HCOB with ‘RM’ (please note that the version of this HCOB as found in the 1991 release of the Technical Bulletins volumes have his name & initials deleted, they are only found on the original mimeo print-off*). Many references released in these early 80's have it confirmed that they were not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard or that he even knew about them being issued (see my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”, chapter “Introduction to this page” for further information). For that reason this relates also here. This HCOB may as well have been wholly devised by Cmdr Ray Mithoff. Could it be seen as queer that this HCOB and the SO ED both have the same person involved?

Go to index
 
‘Sabotage of Ethics Technology’  (planned)


 

Go to index
 
‘Assuming the Hat of Source’  (planned)

 

 

Go to index
 
‘Deliberately mis-C/Sing his wife’  (planned)

 

 

Go to index
 
‘Religious Technology Center’  (RTC)  

The section of the SO ED entitled “FUTURE” makes “an aside” comment at (3):
        
“Back when the Religious Technology Center was being formed Mayo tried desperately, on several occasions, to get himself posted in RTC --- he perceived it as a position of power from which he could wreak even more havoc on tech lines --- but his attempts to gain this posting were unsuccessful. He is now attacking RTC, as his squirrel practices are diametrically opposed to the aims and purposes of RTC which are simply to get LRH tech standardly applied.”
         
It is an odd claim as David Mayo is found on the RTC incorporation papers as an actual co-founder, one of the trustees. Meaning he was already involved into it so to say up to his neck.
One of the articles of the incorporation papers state very clearly:
            Article VI.           
          
“The Corporation's affairs shall be regulated and managed by a Board of seven natural persons who shall be designated ‘Trustees’ which Board shall have and exercise all powers given to ‘Directors’ by the California Nonprofit Corporation Law.”
           
One of these “seven natural persons” being David Mayo! Therefore it becomes an absurdity to claim in the SO ED that David Mayo “tried desperately, on several occasions, to get himself posted in RTC ”!
The document can be consulted in the below link (will open as a pop-up window).
    “Articles of Incorporation of Religious Technology Center”

There is a further apparent irony involved with this as the first Condition Order that was issued by this corporation (RTC Condition Order #1) involved a Comm-Ev* on amongst other David Mayo and various others posted in the Office of the C/S International. By then he was already pulled of post and the whole of the Office of the C/S International was under investigation. All this apparently done by a corporation that David Mayo had actively participated in and actively had supported in putting together!

Go to index
 
‘Further Data’  &  ‘many other crimes’

The section of the SO ED with above title says:
        
“The above data has been made available to give some idea of what this person was up to. It is not by any means a full and complete account of all his destructive actions.
         
 
  There are other HCOBs and HCO PLs written during the past year that give further information on what Mayo did and the actions that have been taken to handle these messes. These include HCO PL 29 Sept 82, MISREPRESENTATION OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY and the HCO PL of 12 Oct 82, CORRUPT ACTIVITIES.”
  
And somewhere in the section entitled “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS” it says:
        
“(Note:  There are many other crimes which Mayo committed, both while on staff in the Church and since his departure, which can be read about in FLAG CONDITIONS ORDER 7138 and in other issues; the above partial list was included here simply to give an idea of the type and magnitude of his destructive actions.)”
         

One would expect that the SO ED listed various of the worst of these socalled crimes. Either way the SO ED does make a note on something here that is in actual fact a generality. The question is if this is proper to do. Another angle of this is the consideration that the idea is being given in this SO ED and subsequently some additional issues that his infiltration was indeed quite widespread! The obvious incongruity here is then why was it not exposed at a much, much earlier date? Changing workable processes or adding unworkable processes will give unsatisfied customers, these customers will then complain. How come that no one responded to all that more rapidly? This observation is an inconsistency that seriously bothers me!

Go to index
 
The ‘scare’ factor

Selected text from the section of the SO ED entitled “FUTURE” as written by Mr. Ray Mithoff reads:  (underlining is mine)
        
“He (David Mayo) knows that there are many new OT levels above Solo NOTs which have been fully researched, and knows that he does NOT have any of the data on these nor has he ever seen them.
         
 
  He knows very well that anyone involved in a squirrel group or psychiatric group or any anti-Scientology activity will never, ever be permitted to receive these services. He knows that when the Founder donated the trademarks of Scientology and Dianetics to the Religious Technology Center, RTC in turn promised to safeguard the tech against misuse and to make sure that, in accordance with long-standing policy, the upper levels are kept secure and out of the hands of anyone intending to use the materials to harm people or for some purpose other than spiritual gain.
 
 
  The actions of Mayo and the little group he has joined amount to not only an attempt to lure some people off the Bridge, but an attempt to deny that Bridge to them for eternity (because once they become involved with this squirrel practice they will thereafter be denied access to the upper levels). And he knows this too. And those few who might fall for his PR should be forewarned.”
  

A clear message is given in the above. If you leave us or go some place else you will not be permitted to ... (fill in). I draw the attention to this as this is a frequently used argument to keep people quiet but also close around to you. The question to ask is how do we know the claim that “he (David Mayo) does NOT have any of the data on these nor has he ever seen them” to be actually true? If we think about it David Mayo in fact was the Senior C/S International, he was entrusted with the socalled NOT's materials (which as per the indications we have he factually compiled), why would he not have been entrusted with or had access to these proclaimed “many new OT levels above Solo NOTs which have been fully researched”? As early as 1973 messages appeared about some higher OT levels:
        
“There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people's full attainment of OT VI & VII.”          LRH
         (from HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials”)
         
Nonetheless it is then claimed that David Mayo would know nothing about them?

A note may be made here as well concerning Mr. Pat Broeker who spoke at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles on 27 January 1986. This was at the event that announced the passing of L. Ron Hubbard. He said: “New OT IX and X have also been finished and written up. There are several other OT levels that it is my job to compile.”. Then ‘SPD 145’, 15 Jul 86 “Issue Line For Source Data” also made him ultimately responsible for the further development of the technology as compiled from LRH notes, directives etc. Nonetheless this was all denounced by Mr. Miscavige in April 1988 in ‘FO 3879 Cancelled’, 18 Apr 88 “The Sea Org & The Future, Cancelled” in where he writes: “when he (Pat Broeker) was with LRH prior to 1986, he was there only as domestic staff, not in any technical or administrative capacity”. Mind that David Mayo was actually placed as the highest technical terminal after L. Ron Hubbard. And he was surpassed somehow by Mr. Pat Broeker just like that? We find ourselves on sort of unconfirmed and shaky grounds in regards to the statements made concerning these matters as it appears.

The “Religious Technology Center, RTC” may very well have “promised to safeguard the tech against misuse and to make sure that, in accordance with long-standing policy, the upper levels are kept secure and out of the hands of anyone intending to use the materials to harm people or for some purpose other than spiritual gain.” The RTC however did not come into being as late as 1982. In addition David Mayo had not been considered until later to “intending to use the materials to harm people or for some purpose other than spiritual gain.” It may be noted here as well that David Mayo actually is found on the incorporation papers of the RTC itself as one of the co-founders.

The clear warning “And those few who might fall for his PR should be forewarned.” may cut from 2 sides as the claim made in the SO ED may be considered PR all by itself. Besides that realization are fear or dependency not very reliable or worthy advisers, especially not when it concerns a subject that is supposed to be about achieving freedom. Do note also that the group with which it is claimed that David Mayo has joined forces is belittled as a “little group”, one can question the choice of words, as they relate more than one message. Facts are as facts are, let's face these and not implicate something more by our choice of words.

 
‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow Up the Bridge, The US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco 1982”

A harsh tone coupled with this scare factor is also found in this speech of Mr. Ray Mithoff held at the US Mission Holders Conference in San Francisco on 17 October 1982. In the first part of his speech he relates:
        
“Tonight you've heard a bit about this recent epidemic of this squirrel tech, ...”
         
Concluding that:
        
“It's not just that one person went crazy and invented something, ...”
         
And expressed about it:
        
“But I was particularly disgusted when I found out that other people and other staffs, mission staffs in particular went along with this, thought it was great ...”
         

In the second part of the speech Mr. Ray Mithoff first flags with:
        
“The upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11 -- these levels are amazing. They are amazing beyond your belief. These things are all there and it's a very bright future.”
         
Then the scare factor makes its entry with if you were to:
        
“Join up with some squirrel ..., try to audit some piece of tech that you've invented and call it Scientology or take a piece of Scientology that is Scientology tech and go out and try to sell it to somebody and call it something else, call it, you know, Whiz-Bangs or something.”
         
Following the warning:
        
“You do something like that I can assure you you will have no more certs, you won't even have the corner of your HAS Course cert. You won't even have the thumbtack to pin it on the wall. You won't have any certificates, you won't get any auditing and I can see to it that you won't. And you particularly won't get anymore OT levels, nothing, if you persist.”
         

Later in the speech again:
        
“Like I said, if someone here persists in squirrelling or getting others to squirrel or just standing there like this while your buddy is wrecking Scientology, just standing there (whistling) like that, which I consider just as gross. And if you all read the new 1982 Policy Letter called Knowledge Reports, you'll see what I mean. If you just stand right there and say, well, okay, let this guy wreck Scientology. From my post I can very much ensure that you will never, ever get anywhere near any Scientology book, meter, anything and I can request of persons in RTC to see to it that other measures are taken. But I can Assure you that you will not have anymore certs whatsoever and anyone in this room right now who goes out and tries to do anything even vaguely resembling this ‘dinging’ thing of ringing the bell in the courseroom or locking students in closets or ah, telling every single public person that walks in the door that they're PTS because they have money or something like this, anybody who gets into this thing and I find out about it (and I will because of my comm lines are very, very far reaching right now) I can tell you you won't have anything left. Nothing.”
         

It is not all forwarded in a very gentle manner. It's like saying: “Conform to what we say, or else..!”. Personally I am not in particular fond of this way of expressing. Its product is rather that you will shut up people, them having a point in regards to Keeping Scientology Working or not. It is better then to not draw attention to oneself by opening one's mouth for anything in fear that one may become a target. In particular you will not be prone to question these speakers for what they say or claim is the right thing or not the right thing. After all you may imperil your “upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11 -- these levels are amazing. They are amazing beyond your belief. These things are all there and it's a very bright future.”, and your future may not be so bright. Although there is this imminent danger that this harsh approach may not forward the purpose accurately!

Later during the conference a break was made for Overts & Withholds write-ups and Knowledge Reports, papers were passed out and so on. A stressing comment was also made by Cmdr. Wendell Reynolds (International Finance Dictator):
        
“If you've done stuff in the past and you come clean now we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We'll assume that you weren't hatted or you were misdirected or something else. You don't come clean tonight and I find out something after this, man, you've had it.”
         
Sounds like about all had done bad things one way or the other.

Of course, certain measures taken may have been necessary in events of heavy turbulence of some sort. We have to watch however what it may result in? After all we don't want an obedient flock of sheep. Or do we?
Well, let's keep in mind that if you allow yourself to be ruled by fear instead of following your integrity, well, “man, you've had it”. “I can tell you you won't have anything left. Nothing.”

Go to index
 
Final comments about this SO ED ...

Now we have come to a final word about this SO ED. What else is there to say? Some of the claims made in the SO ED indeed may have some truth contained within, various other claims may be questioned as per my findings. Either way David Mayo was an authority to be reckoned with. There may have been the fear that people would follow him if he was to leave the church. To prevent this from happening the tactic may have been used as in to put his head on a pike, and in a rather severe way warn and inform those who may be prone to do so. It would have been a fairly justifiable reason. And it would also explain the use of the scare factor (see previous chapter) that was reverted to at around this time.

One may consider the kind of language used in these quotations as found in the writing of this SO ED, and I mean especially the parts that are claimed to be deriving from L. Ron Hubbard. They are a kinda hateful I would figure. They really attempt to relate the message about how truly bad and evil this David Mayo must have been. But there is also the matter of being effect, one can notice this blaming tone seeping through in these quotations.

Selections from these quotations attributed to as deriving from L. Ron hubbard:
      
“‘He is a very clever fellow in that he could lie to me consistently, convincingly report, this that or the other thing.’”
       
 
“‘Mayo could not have done a more vicious thing than that.’”
  
 
“‘Thinking it over, I would say that Mayo is a covert NCG, for if he were ever audited by somebody whose TRs were out, not even his suppressive curves would permit him to make such a horror of a scene.’”
  
 
“‘... Mr. SP Mayo, the darling of the psychs, ... .’”
  
 
“‘Mayo is a very clever cat. Although he did not succeed in the long run in fooling me he could nevertheless put up a pretty good show. This means that he is a very clever fellow. He showed one face in one direction and quite another face in another direction.’”
  

Now, how could L. Ron Hubbard have been fooled at all and at any time? David Mayo was Flag C/S since 1973, promoted to Senior C/S International in 1978 which position he held for about a whole 4 years (at least during October '78 to late August '82). All this surely sounds like a fairly long time to me. We should also not forget that L. Ron Hubbard is considered the source of Scientology. If someone understands it and its application it should be him. He is then not likely to be led behind some curtain. If he could be, then we have valid reason to start to put some very serious questionmarks about this would-be valuable technology he then developed. This deduction is simple plain logic.

It is reported by some that ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” (Broad Publication Issue) was issued to calm down the Scientology public (after all we had already ‘Flag Conditions Order 7138’, 2 Mar 83 “Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare Declare: David Mayo”, conveying a very similar text although with a more limited distribution). Then when this sort of failed a mission was send out to inform even further. Its main message seems to have been that “the reason why LRH did not discover that Mayo was an SP, was that LRH was such a big thetan, that all SP tendencies and case would vanish in his presence. Therefore it was not possible for LRH to discover that Mayo was really an SP.” Please bear in mind that these are rumours that went around, I can't confirm these personally for their accuracy. I however do have some memories from the late 80's that these stories conveying such a concept went around (at Flag and AOSH EU in Denmark). Either way it is of interest though as at least it attempts to explain something, and it's the only one that I could find, for which reason I forward it here.
Is the explanation plausible? I don't think it is. Increased awareness simply does not culminate into having blind spots. Becoming more aware is about becoming more cause, where having blind spots are about being effect. In addition one only has to watch for indications in the physical universe, for which it is claimed there were very many in regards to David Mayo. How many persons around David Mayo then will actually have had such blind spots making them unable to spot these obvious signs? Then lastly its concept is not supported anywhere in writings from L. Ron Hubbard, in fact quite the contrary. And when we think about it, if L. Ron Hubbard was such a “big thetan, that all SP tendencies and case would vanish in his presence”. Then why did David Mayo not “vanish” from his vicinity? Who needs then to discover some suppressive person, they would blow away all by themselves.
I can sum this up with concluding that no logic whatsoever is found in the argument. This then forces us to actually think in a different direction. L. Ron Hubbard did not spot it apparently. Then what was L. Ron Hubbard actually doing, was he actually still around for real? If we assume that he was still around for real then it raises some issues in regards to the validity of the technology he actually developed. Some have claimed that the abilities that could be achieved within Scientology could as easily get lost again. These are the 2 main options that we have here.

You will have to figure out for yourself if any of the claims made are plausible and if in fact this is L. Ron Hubbard speaking here. Would it be logical to assume that he would express himself like that? The year 1983 was a very odd year in more than one way. Proof was required by court to confirm that he was actually still alive. Letters with special ink were to confirm this. You can read about all that on my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order”, chapter “‘L. Ron Hubbard Breaks Silence’ (February 1983, Rocky Mountain News)”. We also have the story of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, for which L. Ron Hubbard's authorship has been seriously questioned (see my page “Scientology: The ‘Practice of Disconnection’”).

As I said earlier it will not be in the liking of various that I tell these things, but honestly what options do I have?

 

Vocabulary:

     ARC:
A word from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality, Communication which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as “He was in ARC with his friend.”
     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard. In Jan 1974 projects were started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being valid reissued as BPL's.
     BTB:
'Board Technical Bulletin', these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for technical bulletins not written by L. Ron Hubbard. In Jan 1974 projects were started to cancel HCOB's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being valid reissued as BTB's.
     checksheet:
A list of materials, often divided into sections, that give the theory and practical steps which, when completed, give one a study completion. The items are selected to add up to the required knowledge of the subject. They are arranged in the sequence necessary to a gradient of increasing knowledge on the subject. After each item there is a place for the initial of the student or the person checking the student out.
     Committee of Evidence (Comm Ev):
A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature.
     F/N:
‘Floating Needle’. The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’: issue-type since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address technical issues, having to do with auditing procedures and courses. 
      HCO PL (Pol Ltr, P/L or PL):
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. 
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     M1 or M1WC:
‘Method One Word Clearing’. See at ‘Method One Word Clearing’ in vocabulary
     Method One Word Clearing:
1. by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N*. 2. assess, take the reading items from the best read on down and with E/S (earlier similar) pull each one to F/N. Get each word you find to F/N. There can be many F/Ns per subject. End off with a win on the subject. 3. the action taken to clean up all misunderstoods in every subject one has studied. It is done by a word clearing auditor. The result of a properly done Method One word clearing is the recovery of one's education. Abbr. M1.
     MU:
‘Mis-Understood’. Usually is meant a Miss Understood word.
     NCG:
‘no-case-gain’. Means no-case-gain despite good and sufficient auditing. (HCO PL 16 May 69]
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62) Abbr. pc.
     PRD:
‘Primary Rundown’. The Primary Rundown consists of word clearing and study technology. Consists of Method 1 word clearing and Method 8 on on study tapes and the Student Hat course materials.
(Method 1: by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N; Method 8: Usually an alphabetical list of every word or term in the text of a paper, a chapter or a recorded tape is available or provided. The person looks up each word on the alphabetical list and uses each in sentences until he has the meaning conceptually.)
     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 (link will open in a separate window).
     PTS (Potential Trouble Source):
Those who are connected to suppressive persons or groups and are potential trouble sources. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (as per KSW #1: HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”).
     Tone Arm (TA):
The Tone Arm (meter control lever) of an E-meter could be judged as an indication of a certain accumulation of charge in the student.

Go to top of this page

Copyright © 2006  Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved.
This page revised: 2 May, 2010