Of course, I studied and applied some of those HCOBs that Pierre
wants us not to use.  I can totally agree with everything he said,
except not checking grade processes for read.

Many of them have flows, and perhaps one flow is available and reads
and the others don't but will read later.  I have found with
experience that once should check the flows for reads and start with
the one that reads well and is most real to the pc.

I think there should not be a hard and fast rule about not checking
for reads on grade processes. True, if it reads on clearing or the pc
seems interested in the process, checking for a read is just
unnecessary.  When pc looks interested, then just go for it.  But if
it has quad flows, then checking for read will give you the most
available flow that is real to the pc, and you can start with that
one.

The new list of grade processes in the new volumes I have found is a
better line up than earlier ones put together by tech aides.  LRH
never put any of the grade checksheets together, and a lot of thought
has gone into the new volumes grade checksheets.  Still, some of them
can be a little redundant.  Person has already cognited on a very
similar command, it might not read and he might not be interested in
it.  These are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

If I were training a new person and having them co-audit I would just
have them run each process in sequence.  It is too much to expect a
new trainee to understand when to run a process and when not to.

Nothing I say here should indicate that a person should quicky a
grade.

Peirre may be right, he has had a lot more experience than I have,
but still I can't just toss out the HCOb's I was trained on.  It took
some thought about them at the time to arrive at the above conclusion.

Also, in the early days we ran processes, lots of them.  We didn't
check for reads.  Sometimes they ran, sometimes they didn't.  Of
course, in those days people weren't necessarily set up for
processes, and they were run as Ron invented them.  Our rule then was
if a process didn't produce change in 20 minutes, drop it.  It
didn't "read" in the first place.

I found back in co-audits that most people would run well on most
processes.  But we didn't have quad flows in those days (some
exceptions like nine way help brackets) and I think it is important
that we don't run a flow that doesn't read.  If it doesn't read, pc
can start dubbing in, or doing wierd things, or caving in.

An auditor in 1959 asked me for the overt necessary to resolve the
case.  I had just finished running out the whole track overt I had
been sitting in.  I went looking for another--there wasn't one.
Auditor was encouraging me to look, so I postulated that there was
one.  Competely crashed, interiorized, etc. all because auditor kept
asking for something that didn't read.  Later I asked her what the
needle looked like.  She said it looked like it was floating.  Oh,
well, ARCx needle, we didn't know about that in those days.

And of course, corrections lists didn't come out until many years
later, so I struggled with insanity for several years, and it was no
fun.  Walls moving in on me.  Mirror not refecting my body's image. 
Nightmares.  Terror like you couldn't believe.

Of course that was all being done in the non-interference area (which
we also didn't know about then).  I wouldn't expect that kind of
action/reaction from someone just moving up the grades because a flow
wasn't checked. But, it is a good lesson for anyone who is clear for
not doing other processes in that non-interference zone.

So if I err on the side of caution, there is good reason for it.  It
doesn't harm anything to check for reads on a grade process,
especially the flows.  But it shouldn't be used to quicky the level. 
Some times a person is sitting on a motivator flow, sometimes an
overt, sometimes both.  But I wouldn't assume anything in that area. 
I would check for read.

My humble opinion.

Pat








--- In fzaoint@yahoogroups.com, "Chloe " <inquisitor@h...> wrote:
> could not find what you asked for.
>
> did find stuff from Sophia
>
> Sophia says:
> Some time ago, I received following write-up.
>
> "CHECKING QUESTIONS ON GRADES PROCESSES
> UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS
> MODERN REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
> INSTANT READS
>
> R-Fac and Observation: around 1978 the Church of Scientology started
> some attempts to make the tech standardized (to release all as HCOBs
> and HCO PLs
instead
> of having
> BTBs and BPLs) and easy understandable. The Church wrote quite an
amount
> of new "HCOBs"
> which are based on true LRH tech but in fact not have been directly
written
> by him.
> And by that some fatal errors - most probably intentionally -
sneaked
> in.
>
> HCOB 23 June 1980 CHECKING QUESTIONS ON GRADES PROCESSES (original
and
> all subsequent
> revisions) which is most probably not from and only an
interpretation
> of his tech.
> There is no issue or lecture of LRH that an auditor has to check a
normal
> grade process
> for read. As basic to that HCOB served probably HCOB 27 May 1970
UNREADING
> QUESTIONS
> AND ITEMS (revised and unrevised) which states that an question must
> read before
> you can run it. But this applies to LISTING AND NULLING QUESTIONS,
not
> to grade commands.
> No auditor known to me who did the Academy and/or SHSBC before 1978
did
> ever check
> any grade process for read.
>
> Actually the HCOB 23 June 1980 CHECKING QUESTIONS ON GRADES
PROCESSES
> started a fatal
> wave of quickie what was followed by the "solution" of "Golden Age
of
> Technology".
>
> The HCOB 23 June 1980 CHECKING QUESTIONS ON GRADES PROCESSES and the
> practice of checking normal grade commands for interest and read is no
> more to
be
> used and taught
> on any course or checksheet. Please don't use it anymore.
>
> HCOB 27 May 1970R UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS (only the Revision!)
> is also not to be used anymore as it says every flow has to read, what
> applies
to
> Dianetics and
> not to Scientology. So this issue is misleading and the subject is
actually
> covered
> in HCOB 3 Dec 1978 UNREADING FLOWS.
>
> HCOB 7 Sept 1978 MODERN REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING is a summary of how
to
> do a Repetitive
> Prepcheck and it would be fine - but it contains that you have to
check
> the buttons
> for read what is an arbitrary. The subject an auditor is going to
prepcheck
> must
> read not the buttons. All other is fine. Please use instead of that
BTB
> 10 Apr 1972RA
> PREPCHECKS and HCOB 14 Aug 1964 PREPCHECK BUTTONS.
>
>
> READS
>
> The HCOB 27 May 1970 UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS was
misinterpreted
> to the effect
> that a Tick or Change of Characteristic is not a Read, that a Read
is
> only a Small
> Fall or bigger. The sentence 'A "tick" or a "stop" is not a read.
Reads
> are small
> falls or falls or long falls or long fall blowdown (of TA)' was put
out
> of sequence
> into the Tech Dict and became general valid data. That you need a
Small
> Fall or a
> bigger Read is applicable to ITEMS and Listing and Nulling
QUESTIONS,
>  not to a Rudiment
> question, nor a Correction List question nor Sec Check question. See
> also Reference
> HCOB 3 July 1971R, AUDITING BY LIST.
>
>
> INSTANT READS, HISTORY
> 1. HCOB 23 May 1962, E-METER READS, PREPCHECKING, HOW METERS GET
INVALIDATED
>
> It says it is "fatal" to pass an instant reaction on a pc and may
cancel
> further
> reads.
>
> 2. HCOB 25 May 1962, E-METER INSTANT READS
> "The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except null. An
instant
> read may
> be any change of characteristic, providing it occurs instantly."
This
> HCOB further
> says: "The instant read may consist of any needle reaction, rise,
fall,
>  speeded rise,
> speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other
action
> so long as
> it occurs at the exact end of the major thought being expressed by
the
> auditor."
> So far, with these 2 points, we know something should be done with
those
> instant
> stops, rise, ticks.
>
> 3. HCO PL 26 May 1962, TRAINING DRILLS MUST BE CORRECT
> That one is very important and seems incorrectly interpreted in IGN
Bulletin
> 25,
> where that HCO PL was interpreted as meaning you could not take a
stop
> or a tick,
> but only falls. This is not what this HCO PL says! It says that you
should
> only take
> instant reads, and even refer to the HCOB 25 May 1962 (point 2
above).
> Here is an extract: "This came from needle-reading TRs where
instructors
> had students
> calling off every activity of the needle as a read, whereas only the
> needle action
> at the exact end of the question was used by the auditor. Auditor
have
> thought all
> needle actions were reads and tried to clean off all needle actions
except,
>  in some
> cases, the end actions." Ron says here that an action needle
occurring
> prior is not
> a read, and that you should only take instant reactions.
> So far, we have nowhere a difference between "instant read" and
a "read
> occurring
> instantly".
> Here, a valid read is any instant reaction of the needle. And so
far,
>  in rudiments,
> one should take up any instant reaction on rudiments, or the meter
might
> go null
> and mask further out ruds.
>
> 4. HCOB 2 July 1962, REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS, HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS
IN
>
> "A meter can become null if an instant reaction is missed on a
rudiment,
>  and obscure
> further out ruds. Instant reads are defined in HCOB 25 May 1962
above."
>
> So, if you get a stop, but no falls even with buttons, and ignore
that
> rudiment,
> you are in trouble.
> The HCOB further states: "If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to
> steer the pc
> to the answer [.]", and refer to the 25 may HCOB for the definition
of
> instant read.
> So far, in rudiments, one should take up any instant reaction on
rudiments,
>  or the
> meter might go null and mask further out ruds.
>
> 5. HCO PL 14 July 1962, AUDITING ALLOWED
> One instant read missed out of 200 can deprive pc from all gains.
Usually,
>  any session
> trouble started with an error in reading an instant read.
>
> 6. HCOB 25 April 1963, METER READING TRs
> The above HCOBs of 1962 are still indicated as valid.
>
> 7. HCOB 8 June 1963R, THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS,
BULLETIN
> 2
> This explains how to date on the track (like EM25). So far, the
instant
> read has
> not been redefined yet.
> This implies that when dating, you must take any instant reaction
(rise,
>  tick, theta
> bop, .).
>
> 8. EM 22 (from the E-Meter drills book)
> That exercise is from 1963 also. At that time, the definition of
instant
> read is
> the one from 25 may 1962. So, you should take any instant reaction,
like
> a tick or
> a stop. If you ignore it because it was not a fall, the pc might go
ARCX
> gradually
> and will react even less on the meter! If this worked in 1963, it
will
> still work
> in 2001 of course. In 1963, dating was done using any instant
reaction
> and this worked,
> so there is no reason why today you could not use any instant reads
today
> in dating.
>
> 9. HCOB 25 June AD13, ROUTINE 2H, ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT
> "Look only for tiny ticks or falls or a small left to right slash of
> the needle.
> Do not expect large reactions." Here the greatest read is to be
taken
> from the assessment,
> but a tick would still be ok.
>
> 10. HCOB 1 March 1964, METER READS, SIZE OF
> On lower levels, size of read is usually 1/8" to 1/4" (ticks or SF)
at
> sensitivity
> 16. On upper levels, reads are huge. But even there, ticks and tiny
falls
> would be
> ok in rudiments: the HCOB does not revise that. In checking a goal,
getting
> only
> a tick, you would put in buttons to see if it develops into a big
read.
> But this is for a goal, to run something! For a rudiments, read are
not
> often so
> and you must accept ticks.
> Here is an extract: "in class V and VI, tiny reads are used only for
> mid ruds as
> they were in lower levels".
> So this is just another reference allowing to take ticks in
rudiments.
> If it worked
> in 64, it would still work this way today.
>
> 11. HCOB 7 October 1968, ASSESSMENT
> There is an example of nulling to one item. Items giving instant
reaction
> but not
> a fall are noted as "/". Falls are noted SF, F, LF or LFBD.
> In the example, he has two "/" and one "F", the rest is null ("X").
After
> the first
> nulling, he reassesses those 3 items, including the 2 "/" items.
This
> shows they
> were considered as reading items.
> There is also an example of L&N, and on first nulling, there is
one "/"
> and one "F".
> The list is extended, because it has more than one reading item
(thus,
>  the "/" is
> counted as reading item).
> This is in 1968.
>
> 12. HCOB 15 August 1969, FLYING RUDS
> So far, instant read is still the 1962 definition.
> So, if you check ARCX? And you get any instant reaction, you take
it!
> A Fall is not
> needed. There is so far no HCOB yet stating that.
> If it is null, you put suppress in.
> (Error in Golden Age of Tech: if you get a tick or a stop on ARCX,
you
> have to check
> suppress. If it does not read, you skip that rud, while there is
something,
>  since
> it gave an instant reaction of the needle! The result is BPC and
out-
> ruds.)
>
> 13. HCOB 27 May 1970, UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS.
> "A tick or a stop is not a read. Reads are SF, F, LF or LFBD".
> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WHERE IT IS STATED THAT STOPS AND TICKS ARE
NOT
> READS!
> But. Let's look at the full HCOB to see in which context, because
all
> earlier HCOBs
> have not been cancelled.
> This applies to listing (includes also listing for Running Item,
HCOB
> 14 Sep 71,
> DIANETIC LIST ERRORS), items to prepcheck. A item with just a tick,
stop
> or "/" would
> not give a proper Dianetic chain.
> But this says nothing about ruds, dating, or assessments like EM-24,
> or correction
> lists.
> This HCOB says that in order to RUN something (run = audit a
process),
>  it must read
> well (not with a tick only, but with falls). But rudiments and
correction
> lists are
> to locate a BPC, not to audit the case. So, if in a rud or prepared
list,
>  you get
> only a "/", you take it. (see HCOB 3 July 1971R, AUDITING BY LIST,
which,
>  although
> coming later in time, explicitly allows tick as valid read on a
correction
> list).
>
> 14. HCOB 3 July 1971R (revised 22 Feb 79) AUDITING BY LIST "Mark the
> read at once (tick, SF, F, LF, LFBD, R/S), [.] and look
expectantly
> at
> the pc".
> So, a tick is a valid read when you are assessing a prepared list.
This
> confirms
> that the redefinition of read as being falls (point 13 above)
applies
> on thing that
> you want to RUN (items for Dianetic chain or L&N question,). But it
does
> not apply
> to ruds, ARCU /CDEINR assessments or prepared lists.
>
> 15. HCOB 5 August 1978, INSTANT READS
> The only thing changed or clarified here is that all definitions
which
> state it is
> fractions of seconds after the question is asked are cancelled.
There
> is nothing
> new regarding what is a read, in regards to the definition from
1962.
>
> 16. HCOB 11 August 1978 Issue I, RUDIMENTS, DEFINITIONS AND PATTER
> "You want to set up the case to run by getting the rudiments in, not
> to use the rudiments
> to run the case".
> This confirms what is meant by "you do not run something that
doesn't
> read" in the
> HCOB stating you need falls to run something. Rudiments are not to
run
> the case.
> Same for prepared lists. So, if you do not run something, you may
use
> any instant
> reaction (if it is instant).
> But to run a process, you need falls.
>
> Summary
> In 1962, an instant read was defined as any reaction of the needle
occurring
> instantly.
> This was never cancelled, however, many data's were added, stating
that
> when you
> want to run something, you need to have at least falls. But for
rudiments
> or prepared
> lists, or dating (EM 22), any instant reaction is valid, even if not
> a fall. EM 19,
> EM 22 and EM 24 all are to be done with that 1962 definition, since
they
> are from
> that period! And it worked like that at that time, so it will work
the
> same way today.
> There is no contradictions in HCOBs, just various contexts and
aspects
> of the same
> subject. And there is no strange confusion between "instant read"
and
> a read (that
> is instant)."
>
>
>
>
> I'm interested in the opinions (and facts) regarding this write-up.
>
> Sophia
>
>
>
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:24:03 -0800 =?windows-1251?Q?Andreas_Gro=3F?=
> <Andreas_Grosz@g...> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I read an answer by Pierre on this a few weeks ago. Now I wanted to
> >re-read it again and can not find it. Neither in my files, nor in
> >the
> >archiv of yahoogroups. Can anyone please post the answer of Pierre
> >on
> >this again?!
> >
> >He mentioned a class-VIII-tape as an LRH-reference to clear this
> >>
> >question up. Which tape is it?
> >
> >Andreas
> >
> >Oleg V. Matveyev wrote:
> >
> >>Hello Pierre,
> >>
> >>There is some tech question. The current one is what data we apply
> >re
> >>Checking Questions on Grades processes? There is this HCOB 23 June
> >>1980 + two later revisions of it, which was not in line-up until
> >that
> >>date.
> >>
> >>Do we check?
> >>What is the right way to go through the Grade?
> >>
> >>And, btw, which checksheets do you recommend to use in tech
training?
> >>
> >>Thanks a lot beforehand,
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >To visit your group on the web, go to: 
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fzaoint/
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> >fzaoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: 
> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
> FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2
>
> Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
> https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434
>
> Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate
Program:
> https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fzaoint/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  fzaoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/