Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

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

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

	“Beware of all routes where you have to ask for approbation and permission in order to be.”
	“The only possible way that you can get any freedom is to stop asking everybody's permission to be.”       LRH (from Philadelphia Doctorate Course supplementary lecture #6 “SOP Long Form Step III (cont'd): Spacation”, given on 19 Jan 53)

Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after  (page 1, index page)

In the last chapter on this page I give an overview of some things discussed in earlier chapters and various proposals to solution ... !

 
Index:

		Introduction to this page   (page 1)         - Overview of the early 80's         - Solving a problem: compilers turn assistants (notes about BPL's/BTB's & HCOB 24 Jan 77)         - Can we rely on it if it says underneath some reference that L. Ron Hubbard wrote or compiled it? (includes some testimonies)
	The disappearance of information:
		(1) The importance of the Qual Library
		(2) An odd misconception about ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ & The story of the ‘old red volumes’
		(3) The ‘Primary Rundown’ and Superliteracy  or  The story of the altered definition of ‘Fast Flow Training’  (includes an overview of ‘Key To Life course’)
		(4) ‘The Students Rabble Rouse Line’
		(5) Scientology publications compiled or written by other than L. Ron Hubbard  (includes the tale about Ruth Minshull)
	The arrival of new information:
		(1) HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime” & The source of the new information  (includes sections about ‘LRH Notes’ & ‘LRH Advices’) (page 2)
		(2) Various criteria for how new issues actually come about, and various observations made (Orders of the Day, ‘Cramming Series’, LRH or not LRH?)
		(3) Changes in how new tape recordings are being released, conflicting practices and approaches observed
		(4) A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ and its relation/difference with ‘Board Policy Letters’
		(5) The ‘new ways’  or  Turning from a selfcorrecting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?
		(6) HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”  vs  acquiring information about people & control  (includes a note about HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write Up”)
		(7) Golden Age of Tech (GAT) - 1996
	Previous technology replaced with new technology:
		Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82  or  When the Route to Freedom was interfered with and turned upside down (page 3)         - Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations         - Prelude: Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)         - (1) ‘Ring out the old, ring in the new’: ‘Standard Dianetics’ vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (Jul 78)         - (2) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing a change in the definition of Clear? (Sept 78)         - (3) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing the need for ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’? (Sept 78)         - (4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov-Dec 81)         - (5) The disappearance of the original OT levels (Jan-Mar 82)
	Facilities not made available for general use:
		Source Information Retrieval (SIR) - Searchable computer database
	>>> Sum-up <<<
		Overview, things to consider, and various proposals to solution           - What are we going to do with the Qual Libraries? (includes SIR system)         - How to ascertain that something is really deriving from L. Ron Hubbard?

Introduction to this page

• Overview of the early 80's
• Solving a problem: compilers turn assistants  (notes about BPL's/BTB's & HCOB 24 Jan 77)
• Can we rely on it if it says underneath some reference that L. Ron Hubbard wrote or compiled it? (includes some testimonies)

 
Overview of the early 80's

These early '80's marked a difference where it concerns the writing and issuance of materials. It was the first time that for example policy letters were issued not because of some situation or problem that existed and needed handling. No, it was as it seems done at a whim. Simply because some had set their mind to this to be done. This practice of issuing references attributed to L. Ron Hubbard for such a motivation (at a whim) continued in the years following, even as late as 2001.

Many of those HCO PL's and HCOB's that were issued during especially 1980-81 that at its release were attributed as having been written by and originating from L. Ron Hubbard, were later cancelled for reason of that they were not devised, approved or even seen by L. Ron Hubbard. Quite a many of these did not get cancelled till a whole 10 years later (1990-91). Why did it take such a long time till these got cancelled and taken out of circulation? Did L. Ron Hubbard allow these writings going around which he had not devised or approved, but were issued under his name anyway? He surely must have seen these as he passed away not earlier then 24 January 1986. The question emerges if L. Ron Hubbard was actually in control of this, he remained in seclusion since October 1979 till he passed away in 1986, during which time he was only in contact with a few chosen. There are various theories about what had happened going around, I however focus primarily on the Church materials that have been issued, the treatment they received, and how they fall out compared with previous confirmed authentic LRH writings issued prior to 1980.

The above are just some historical notes of things that actually happened. On this page I in particular draw the attention to various of these in regards to these writings themselves.

 
Solving a problem: compilers turn assistants  (notes about BPL's/BTB's & HCOB 24 Jan 77)

We actually see that in particular during 1980-81 a large variety of in HCO PL's were issued that indicated the assistance of a variety of persons. The composer/typing initials found at the bottom of the references do indicate these assistants in capitals, meaning they most definitely were involved compilers of these releases. At least this is what we find in the original reissues, later they turned into either small letters (thus demoted to the level of a typist) or they got removed altogether. It's interesting to see that in the days a bit prior to 1980 that when it said on some reference ‘Assisted by’ that it really meant ‘Assisted by’. However since early 1977 it started to mean that in reality the reference was written by this assistant and that L. Ron Hubbard then was attributed as the actual compiler or writer of the reference. This is ironic as in such cases it would have been L. Ron Hubbard that was the actual assistant. It gets even worse as many of these references that received such a treatment later appeared on cancellation lists (in this case HCO Admin Letters) that indicated that “None of these issues were written by LRH and were falsely (or incorrectly) issued as policy (or HCO bulletin).”, or they indicated “None of these ... were written or approved by LRH”. This would confirm that L. Ron Hubbard in fact had no knowledge about various of these actually being released. These HCO Admin Letters list a whole total of 285 primarily HCO PL's and HCOB's that were cancelled because of such reasons. Consult the summary list here (link will open as a pop-up window).

Planned operation and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”

Summary/overview of issued/reissued references and some evident examples

We can also see that not many original newly written (or previously unpublished) LRH material was issued during 1980-81. They were either:

• Reissues of some old LRH HCOB's from the late 50's given a new date (also taken from a few other issue-types);
• Written by someone else (1) – These someone else's were then indicated on the reference itself as assistants (‘Assisted by’). A quick scan through HCO PL's issued in that time period actually reveals amongst other 49 issues from Susan Krieger, 9 by Monica Quirino etc.. Nonetheless they were all attributed as actually deriving from LRH;
• Written by someone else (2) – No indication of the original writer or compiler, but fully attributed as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard;
• Orders of the Day (OOD's) issued as HCO PL's – This was carried out by Sue Anderson, there exist 73 issues like that (some have been issued on both the HCOB and the HCO PL issue-type format). See full list here (link will open as a pop-up window). We are also lacking any confirmation from L. Ron Hubbard that he wanted to have this done.

We even find a variety of references in these red and green volumes attributed to L. Ron Hubbard that provide no information about assistants, but various of these also very strongly suggest that they have not been written or have been originated by L. Ron Hubbard. The original mimeo print-offs of these then may cancel or replace some BPL or BTB. See more information about this in my chapter “The arrival of new information:  Changes in how new issues actually come about (Orders of the Day, ‘Cramming Series’, LRH or not LRH?), and various observations made” as found elsewhere in this study and this page.

So, what was/is actually going on?

But this was written and released in May 1982, i.e. issued after the 1980-81 period.

	“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”)

 
Can we rely on it if it says underneath some reference that L. Ron Hubbard wrote or compiled it?  (includes some testimonies)

It is pretty much confirmed fact that this is quaranteed with references issued in the early days. Full credit was given to original compilers of references. During since so about the late mid-70's it becomes a matter of great uncertainty. HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” which is discussed in the previous section suddenly opened up a line that it becomes quite unclear if something really was written by L. Ron Hubbard or not. The early 80's then messed up things considerably. An avalanche of non-LRH issues were cancelled and its data reissued during the early 80's under a new reference-date and fully attributed to have been compiled or written by L. Ron Hubbard. Various of these observed sequences I lay out in my chapter “The arrival of new information (2) - Various criteria for how new issues actually come about, and various observations made (Orders of the Day, ‘Cramming Series’, LRH or not LRH?)”.

Here in this little section however I'll give an interesting example of how awry things can go.

The reality of the matter is that ‘today’ we can not, I'll repeat, ‘today’ we can not positively determine that all that is in the present versions of the books actually is derived from, developed by, or written by L. Ron Hubbard, in spite of that it may say so on these references that it is. We are also missing out on a variety of information because of the stripping of all the revision notes, release data or other from the versions of the references that are found in the 1991 release of the ‘Organization Executive Course’ and the ‘Technical Bulletins’ volumes, unabling us even to verify or track matters.

Yeah, but wait a minute here, you may say, all these occurrences were corrected! Were they? My research as found on my site unfolds that it was not. At present we simply have lost track.

Some testimonies

“As you know I used to be on the post of Senior C/S International, for a few years, not until over a year ago. And one of the main purposes of that post was to ensure the high standards and the high quality of the tech. There were some things which occurred which made it difficult to continue doing that at the time. And without going into those things particularly very much here, apart for one of them, which is the subject of how issues are written. You know HCOB's and issues. And you've probably seen various HCOB's or PL's that have come out over L. Ron Hubbard's name. And at other times you have seen issues that have come out as assisted by somebody. One of the things that I used to feel very strongly about at the time was that I felt that if I or somebody else was ordered to write an HCOB by LRH that it should state assisted by and who it was assisted by at the bottom of it. In other words it shouldn't, I felt, that an issue should state who wrote it. In other words if it was written by LRH it should state so and if it was written by somebody else it should state that. It doesn't mean it is not valid but I feel that the correct authorship should be assigned to these things. As a matter of ethics and as a matter of principle.” (from Advanced Ability Center (AAC) tape lecture #1, “The Quality and Standardness of Tech”, given on 4 Dec 83)

Sound snippet (1:38)

“I have personal knowledge that material was written and issued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard that he did not author. While working at ASI*, I personally wrote material to be issued under his name for several years. This ranged from simple messages to be sent to various organizational staff on events such as his birthday or a holiday, to my composing an entire large directive that was issued under his name. In these instances, they were done without his knowledge or consent.” (from Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young in Support of Defendant's Opposition to the Motion of Bridge Publications, Inc. for Summary Judgment Against all Defendants for Copyright Infringement. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of February, 1997, Robert Vaughn Young; Civil Action No. 95-K-2143)

The disappearance of information (1):
  The importance of the Qual Library

(More information about Qual Libraries is found on my page: “History of a Policy Letter - Introduction”. Consult here, link will open in separate window).

	“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. ...
	You have an actual library, not just some books lying around. ...
	Now, you are in the business of knowledge. Well that’s where it’s concentrated in the org. ...
	Information! Where can the guy go to see it - not to be told verbally it - where can the guy go to see it and so on? Well, that is Department 14's Library. That’s the knowledge center. And so, you don't get verbal data lines or anything of the sort. ...
	The librarian is really the Org Information Officer.”          LRH

	Sound snippet 1 (1:22)
	Sound snippet 2 (0:21)

Please take notice that it says in the first sentence of this quotation “... that has ever been issued.” This should mean exactly what it says, you may add any Scientology periodicals, course materials, promo and so on, and so on ...!

	“When an HCOB or Policy Letter is revised, its original date is preserved. The word Revised follows the date. If it is cancelled again and substituted for, it would be ‘RA’.
	This brings a standard to reissues and helps the reader trace back earlier issues.”         LRH           (from HCO PL 2 May 72RA* “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”)

“Our Qual Library has the most complete and comprehensive library of translated LRH works in all of Europe.” (from page 13 of this magazine) Unfortunately reality shows that standard Qual Libraries as outlined by L. Ron Hubbard per the above are disappearing. The Advanced Organization in Copenhagen (AOSH EU*) –located there since 1969– only has the newest materials represented in their Qual Library. This is what AOSH EU themselves say about their library in their magazine. This particular issue was largely about ‘The Grand Opening of AOSH Europe’ (A tour in the newly renovated AOSH EU, official opening by David Miscavige on May 23, 1995):

These translations may very well be there, however you will not find any of the original older magazines (‘Certainty’, ‘Ability’, ‘The Auditor’, ‘Advance!’, etc ...), early versions or cancelled technical bulletins or policy letters, other issue-types, previous bookpublications and so on, and so on ...

The periodical ‘Advance! (Special Issue, US)’, [early 98] relates about the Grand Opening of AOLA (Advanced Organization Los Angeles) on February 14, 1998. I haven't personally inspected their Qual Library, but judging from the illustration of their Qual Library printed in this issue of ‘Advance!’ there is no reason to believe that the situation over there would be any different. Although the article assures “The new Qual Libray, where you'll find any reference you could possibly need on your journey to OT.”.

Anyway I would urge any Scientology organization who has their Qual Library still intact, that they should fight to keep and maintain it! One should not allow that the history of Scientology as told in old issues, original magazines, policies/bulletins and so on disappears from the Scientology publics view. L. Ron Hubbard says it should not, so do not allow this to happen! Fight for it!

The disappearance of information (2):
  An odd misconception about ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ & The story of the ‘old red volumes’

• Odd considerations of some individuals
• Not by L. Ron Hubbard  =  no good?
• The old red volumes

 
Odd considerations of some individuals

The above is by some interpreted as if it is advised by L. Ron Hubbard to actually destroy certain old material. Presently there exist agreements about that certain older materials (specifically non-LRH) are to be considered squirrel*. The argument given is that in order to prevent any of these old issues ever again to be used is to simply shred them. The idea is then that they also are not to be filed in the Qual Library. This approach seems to be the tendency of recent years, I have encountered various Sea Org* members that confided to me that they wished that this old material got wasted. In fact attempts have been made to prevent me from consulting HCO PL's that were not written by L. Ron Hubbard.

I know of no reference or writing from L. Ron Hubbard anywhere that says anything like that some material is to be physically destroyed. When stored in the Qual Library in fact references not being in use anymore will have received a cancellation stamp. If they have received such a stamp they simply are not in use, these are now solely ‘used’ as reference material. This material is there for historical purposes, to help understand how things have developed, how certain processes or other came about, and to enable you to find out how things once were.

“A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and terms, for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods.”          LRH
          (from HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials”)

Alright then, there is an additional argument. We have HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working” that was released in 1965. There exist certain rules about how policy letters are to be dealt with. Policy letters are in fact superseded by policy letters of a later date. Policy letters issued at a later date have the final say. If some action or approach has been cancelled at some point, this particular action is automatically superseded by these references issued at a later date. Let's look at 2 references issued at a later date:

“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 HCO PL 3 Mar 82 “The Qual Library”, originally from lecture given 5 Sept 71 “A Talk on a Basic Qual”)

Neither of the above 2 references say anything about physically destroying. On the contrary the first one states very, very clearly: “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.

No auditor would ever purposely be interested to actually apply any of this older and now not in use data in sessions. Just consider the following. Only a person who willfully wants to do bad would do such a thing, such would be referred to as a suppressive person. These persons however will not be able to stay around in a standardly run Scientology organization, as they would get exposed rather easily and kicked out by an Ethics Officer. Would someone apply this cancelled material by mistake? Unlikely as they are only found in the Qual Library, in addition these issues themselves received a stamp indicating that they are cancelled. Another point is that you as a student have to be alert and in present time to be able to study properly. A Course Supervisor would spot a bad student very quickly and act. Destroying material appears to be solely an interpretation made by some, and it may very well be a faulty interpretation.

 
Not by L. Ron Hubbard  =  no good?

	“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’. ...
	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”)

The above quotations seem to indicate that L. Ron Hubbard himself does not agree with that approach either.

Another angle of this discussion is the actual creation of the issue-type Scientology Policy Directive (SPD). We want to discard of BPL's, but we create a replacement issue for them instead and these are then ‘allowed’? (please see chapter: “The arrival of new information (2) - A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ and its relation/difference with ‘Board Policy Letters’”)

 
The old red volumes

During the early 80's the Scientology organizations had already been stripped from their Qual Library stock of BPL's and BTB's (see introduction chapter of this page). Then around 1997 another rather curious order was given to physically destroy the old red volumes. (I mentioned this already in the previous chapter: “The disappearance of information (1)”). Because of this I was also not allowed to buy these old red volumes from a local Scientology organization's old stock.

Even if there would be some ground for shredding certain references, this would still not be advisable. It is to be taken in serious consideration that such issues have been in use at some time. How are you going to correct those persons who got these specific references applied on them, if you have shredded all of these? This is especially of importance in regards to technical matters and those old red volumes. Volume I-X were issued in 1976, Volume XI & XII respectively in 1979 & 1980. All these 12 volumes together represented the technical issues fully updated to december 1979. People should also not forget that these volumes were reprinted at least until 1986, meaning they were exact replica's of these original 12 volumes. These volumes in fact represent the complete chronological record of the development of the technology up to the end of 1979. It was this information as contained in these volumes that made Scientology what it is today. It was very successfully used during a very long period of time. And now they need to get wasted?

Actually if one reads the original release notes for these 1976 volumes, it really can't be all that bad! Click here to consult these (link will open as a pop-up window). And then L. Ron Hubbard himself did not stop any of these volumes being released! In fact quite the contrary:

	“It has always been my intention that you have full certainty on the technology of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY. It was with this intention that I began to write up the research in the beginning.
	Over the years, I have been so busy getting the technology out and into the hands of Scientologists and the public that I never really had the chance to compile it all in one published work. It was all I could do to keep up with the demands for releases as the research and discoveries mounted and mounted!
	For me, this is a monumental task completed and is the manifestation of many tens of thousands of hours of research finalized into 100% proven, workable, standard tech.
	Your training is very important to me. What you can accomplish as a well-trained Scientologist is vital to the creation of a peaceful world.
	There exists a vacuum of needed technology in the world today. It is up to us to fill it up. This release takes a giant step in that direction.”          LRH          (from ‘LRH ED 280 Int’, 20 Aug 76 “New Release Ten Tech Volumes”)

The disappearance of information (4):
  ‘The Students Rabble Rouse Line’

The other day I overheard a conversation between 2 Scientology students. One of them said to the other: “Yeah, things are not all that perfect here in this course room.” The other one then responded: “Well, then it will just take a little bit longer.”

And I was thinking, do we have today some effective tool to handle things accurately and effectively when things are not all going that smooth in course rooms? I came to think of a handling that once existed, but nowadays has been abandoned. It was called ‘The Students Rabble Rouse Line’. It was laid out first in an non-LRH HCO PL, and then in 1975 reissued as BPL (BPL 20 Nov 70R). I know for a fact that it was still fully in force in 1978, does anyone like to elaborate on that? This BPL reference itself will lay out what it exactly was about. It appears to be an initiative from ‘Training & Services Aide’ , the initials given on the BPL are ‘JR’. I think this is Joan Robertson. You can consult the reference in full here (link will open as a pop-up window).

It was cancelled by ‘SPD 150’, 25 Jul 87 “Cancellation of BPL 20 November 1970R The Students Rabble Rouse Line”. So far I have been unable to consult this issue, so I don't know what it says.

The question is: “Do we have some use for it today?”

The disappearance of information (5):
  Scientology publications compiled or written by other than L. Ron Hubbard

Prior to 1980 there existed a whole variety of publications about the subject of Scientology compiled or written by other persons. Later we see that various of these ended up on some kind of blacklist.

Ruth Minshull

Publications written/compiled for example by Ruth Minshull received this fate. Previously though these very publications were in fact sold, distributed, and also used by the Scientology organizations around the world. In particular I want to name the by her written little pamphlet carrying the title ‘What Every Preclear Should Know’ (1969). I recall that I was to read this publication at Amsterdam org prior to receiving processing, this was back in 1986. My first introduction to Ruth Minshull were her books ‘Miracles for Breakfast’ (1968), about raising children & ‘How to Choose Your People’ (1972), about the Tone scale*. I became acquainted with these, when we were moving Amsterdam org to new locations (just across the street) in 1983 or so. Various unused copies surfaced from a forgotten closet at the attic of that org.

Later during the early 90's I was confided by Virgil Wilhite (old-timer Scientologist, LRH collector and bookseller) that he had received a list of books from New Era Publications (or some place) that he was not allowed to actually sell. It listed amongst other all of the publications by Ruth Minshull. It appears here that the Church of Scientology then follows in the tracks of for example the Catholic church, they also issued their lists of forbidden books. Sure, if some particular books were unauthorized or are given misleading information about the subject of Scientology, in such a case one at least could understand this. However these books we are discussing here were fully authorized at their time of issuance and for a long time afterwards. They had even printed in them: ‘Permission for Publication granted by Issue Authority, Flag’ or something along that line. Various of these publications were issued by local Scientology organizations, for example Ruth Minshulls books were issued by Scientology Ann Arbor in Michigan. These books deriving from Ruth Minshull are probably the most known and most widespread of them all.

Ruth Minshull's book ‘How to Choose Your People’ (1972) even made it to a fourth printing, and this particular book is really not very rare at all. Almost every week a copy of this appears on the eBay on the Internet. Some bookdealers on the Internet however are having a ball and are asking perfectly ludricous prices for the book, this seems to have made various believe that the book is very rare (something). Well, it is not rare! A fair price would be $15-20 in good condition, little more with the nice dustwrapper. Not any of her books are in fact rare. All these originally authorized publications are also found listed in the book publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition).

Once these were so much appreciated and in fact got lots of people interested into Scientology, today these are forbidden. In fact they are referred to as squirrel. A word that actually stands for offbeat practices or simply changing Scientology procedures. If these publications are guilty of that, then why were these authorized at their release? L. Ron Hubbard himself also appears not to disapprove of them! If he would have, he would not have allowed them to have been issued, or allowed them to have been continued to be distributed as they were. I think the answer is a different one. They were not written by L. Ron Hubbard, and some made the decision that this is no good (for some unexplained reason), and so they had to go.

There is some irony here. We have ED Int, Captain Guillaume Lesêvre saying on the US Mission Holders’ Conference held there in San Francisco on 17 October 1982: “You sell LRH books ONLY! ... I suggest definitely that you get rid of all those Ruth Minshull and Peter Gillham and other publications and you just get on LRH books. Just go down in your reception in your bookstore and just get those other books out of there.” (from ‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow up the Bridge, The US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco 1982”. We see however that at present we have a variety of material that is being offered that is not actually written or compiled by L. Ron Hubbard, although his name is put underneath of these as if being the compiler of it. (see chapter later on this page entitled: “The arrival of new information (2) - Changes in how new issues actually come about (Orders of the Day, ‘Cramming Series’, LRH or not LRH?), and various observations made”)

Mary Sue Hubbard

It appeared to be harder to take out of circulation for example ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’, compiled by Mary Sue Hubbard in 1965. Its Foreword though was written by L. Ron Hubbard. The solution chosen for handling this was to reissue this and simply remove every reference to Mary Sue Hubbard. Here it goes even so far as to physically erasing her name on photographs from these early publications! The details about all this and the treatment that ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’ received you can read here (link will open in separate window).

David Mayo

He has not published any books about the subject of Scientology. But in his capacity of being Flag C/S (1973-78) and Senior C/S International (1978-82) he was responsible for the issuance of a whole variety of HCOB's and HCO PL's. A study about him and the things he was involved with is found here (link will open in separate window).

 
‘as directed by’ turns ‘based on’  versus  ‘written by others’

Vocabulary:

     72RA, 72R, 65RB:
For example: ‘HCO PL 2 May 72RA’, ‘HCOB 13 Aug 72R’ & ‘HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued. If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
     AOSH EU:
‘Advanced Organization Saint Hill Europe’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Copenhagen, Denmark.
     ASI:
‘Author's Services, Incorporated’. These were involved with dealings concerning L. Ron Hubbard's literary legacy. Incorporated on 13 October 1981.
     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.
     Book I or Book One:
Refers to ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ which was first published in 1950. ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Procedure.’
     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.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for technical matters not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
     C/S, C/Sed:
‘Case Supervisor’. A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc.
     CBO:
'Central Bureaux Order'. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     DMSMH:
‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’. Book first published in 1950. ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Procedure.’
     ED:
'Executive Directive' or 'Executive Director'.
     FB:
‘Flag Bureaux’.  1. The Flag Bureaux manages orgs. It does not just execute orders of others but initiates orders based on evaluation that directs orgs, handles situations and ensures continued growth. (CBO 435-3R)  2. The international management body of the SO with additional advisor and management activities. (HCO PL 9 Mar 72 1)  3. The external org taking care of the international and SO orgs over the world and planetary actions. (OODs 8 May 72)
     green volume(s):
Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. The ‘old green volumes’ refers to the 1974 release, ‘new green volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
     HCO (HCO Division):
‘Hubbard Communications Office’: It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     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 or PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: issue-type reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. 
     I HELP:
‘International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors’. It provides Field Auditors with the needed guidance and help to operate succesfully as auditors in the field.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     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).
     org:
Abbreviation for ‘organization’.
     pc, pc folder:
‘preclear’. A person who is receiving processing usually is referred to as that. The folder contains information relating to the processing the person received.
     PRO:
‘Public Relation Officer’.
     PTS, PTSness:
‘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.
     Qual Library:
‘Qualification Library’: Located in Division 5 (Qualification Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction). The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run.
     red volume(s):
Refers to ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’, this is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any technical references. These references are mostly printed red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have red bindings. The ‘old red volumes’ refers to the 1976 release, ‘new red volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
“Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PL's and any other issues or advices by LRH.” (quoted from The Organization Executive Course volume 0, 1991 edition, page 729 or 1986 edition, page 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that run the Advance Organizations and also see to it that Class IV organizations (lower level services) do function well. If needed they may send out missions to correct if things don't run smoothly.
     Sec ED:
‘Secretarial Executive Directive’. Later these were referred to as LRH ED. An ‘Executive Directive’ issued by ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (as per KSW #1: HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”).
     Tone scale:
1. Essentially an assignation of numerical value by which individuals can be numerically classified. It is not arbitrary but will be found to approximate some actual governing law in nature. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis p. 59)  2. A person in apathy rises through various tones. These tones are quite uniform; one follows the next and people always come up through these tones, one after the other. These are the tones of affinity, and the tone scale of Dn and Scn is probably the best possible way of predicting what is going to happen next or what a person actually will do. The tone scale starts well below apathy. In other words, a person is feeling no emotion about a subject at all. On many subjects and problems people are actually well below apathy. There the tone scale starts, on utter, dead null far below death itself. Going up into improved tones one encounters the level of body death, apathy, grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm and serenity, in that order. There are many stops between these tones. A person in grief, when his tone improves feels fear. A person in fear, when his tone improves feels anger. (Problems of Work, pp. 77-78).