Subject: UCP

On 9 Apr 1999 21:19:54 -0400, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) wrote:

Dear Ralph:

Thanks for posting.

>Well I know we need lots of processes and lots of good auditors.

I don't know that we need lots of proceses, but we sure DO need LOTS of auditors.

>I know that I rail against people who come up with one shot clear processes
>or say that they have the only solution.

I don't know if UCP is the ONLY solution. I'm strongly convinced it replaces the entire $cientology "bridge," and yields faster better results for free. I imagine other processes will be useful where UCP leaves off. I just haven't found that point yet, with myself or any of my clients.

>However I also consider it true that it is best to find simple processes
>that can be run for a long time.

I strongly agree.

>Some people consider that they are OT beings when they can run a process
>flat very quickly but the opposite is true.

Yes. Can you find and handle your case, rather than not-is it?

>Those who are on the upper levels tend to run a process for a hundred or
>thousand or so hours rather than 2 mins.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's good. I must make case change continuously. Lots of people who have meditated 5 hours per day for 20 years . . . are nuttier than fruitcakes.

>I would rather have a Universal Clearing Process. It would make life easier.
>And .-....
>
>Get the idea of entering a mind.
>Get the idea of not entering a mind.
>
>is still running strong for me.

Good!

>It probably fits after one has taken off some charge on valences with the
>early OT8 steps.

My observation is that UCP FLATTENS *ALL* the hot valences and gets the client simply being himself. I think that is the FIRST step, NOT the last one. BE preceeds DO. Abilities are DOingnesses. There are NO SANE doingnesses until the beingness or identitiy is stably there.

>I have to amend my published OT8 quite a bit. I think that the 1st Melbourne
>ACC lectures need to be thoroughly studied after the PDC so we are not
>talking about a short walk in the park.
>
>Its not going to be a short level.
>
>I see solo NOTs as maybe a thousand hours for many.

I disagree with NOTS entirely. I think there is no reason to have the client running someone else's case. The solo knots auditors I've seen who do many hours get introverted and wierd. If you have entities that are a PROBLEM to you, the solution is two way comm with them. Beyond that, I think they are irrelevant. If you are LISTENING to and OBEYING wierd entities, there is something WRONG WITH YOU, and you need to handle your own lower condtitions. Running out all the TV you have seen is NOT the solution to propaganda awareness, it's handling the fact that you are easily hypnotized.

>The OT8 level is longer.

UCP will flatten all the compulsive valences in the order of a hundred hours or two.

>I know that many would like a cheap bridge and become OT next year. I am
>sorry to say that it is not available from anything that I have seen.

I think you could comfortably BE YOURSELF, THIS YEAR!, and that is far higher case ability than most "OT"s I have seen.

>Some of us have been in the business for decades.

Yes. I am one of them. Almost all the other ones I've known are still out of valence and below death on the tone scale, in lower conditions as a being.

>Its a long hard slog and the best chance you have is to get hold of every
>piece of LRH tech available and study it thoroughly.

I don't agree. Why emulate a brilliant criminal psychotic who spent the last 20 years of his life screaming about "germs" and "BT"s? It's only a long hard slog if you are doing it wrong.

>Some people are working very hard to post everything needed.

Yes. Opinions differ on what is needed. I think I have posted everything needed here and on my web site.

>I think that there is one choice out of 2.
>
>The first is to pay someone to change one's nappies every day.
>
>The other is to learn the tech cold. And then take responsibility for
>getting at least 12 other people to OT.

I'm all in favor of getting LOTS of people co-auditing. That is the ONLY was we can get a relatively sane planet in a reasonable number of lifetimes.

>PCs will never become OT.

I disagree. Clients and and do go sane on UCP. However, auditing others IS very good for your case and expands your abilities greatly.

>In the ESTO tapes Hubbard said that 50% of the gain is in auditing. 50% is
>in training. And then he said that another 50% is available in doing one's
>post.
>
>Whatever one is doing to make money to live is not one's post in life for
>most.
>
>You are going to start really progressing to OT when you take responsibility
>for your fellow inmates.

I agree it helps a lot.

>Ralph Hilton
>http://Ralph.Hilton.org

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer
GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm

"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prohet.net!"

"Ryan Q.Lee" <ryanqlee@hotmail.com> wrote in thread "UCP", on 14 Jun 1999 19:52:55 -0400, in message <19990614234307.490.qmail@hotmail.com>:

Dear Ryan:

Thanks very much for recommending UCP.

Now if you got a co-audit and RAN IT for a hundred hours, your life and your awareness level would be totally transformed, and you would BEHAVE much differently too.

HERE'S THE CRITICAL QUESTION:
DO YOU THINK YOUR OWN ADVICE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO FOLLOW?

Let's see if you can "WALK YOUR TALK," as they say!

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

==========================================

>The following seems to be the core of UCP.
>
>---
>UCP COMMANDS:
>1] Tell me a place you have been.
>2] Compare that place to where you are now.
>3] Where might you be?
>4] Compare that place to where you are now.
>
>1] Tell me a View Point you have had.
>2] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>3] What View Point might you have?
>4] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>---
>
>This is very, very familiar to me. R2-21 Granting of Beingness in Route 2 of
>Creation of Human Ability.
>
>I heartedly recommend it.
>
>Arc, Ryan

ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) wrote in thread "UCP", on 14 Jun 1999 21:12:42 -0400, in message <3768a45b.73293429@mgate.telekabel.at>:

>On 14 Jun 1999 19:52:55 -0400, in alt.clearing.technology "Ryan Q.Lee"
><ryanqlee@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The following seems to be the core of UCP.
>>
>>UCP COMMANDS:
>>1] Tell me a place you have been.
>>2] Compare that place to where you are now.
>>3] Where might you be?
>>4] Compare that place to where you are now.
>>
>>1] Tell me a View Point you have had.
>>2] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>>3] What View Point might you have?
>>4] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>>
>>This is very, very familiar to me. R2-21 Granting of Beingness in Route 2 of
>>Creation of Human Ability.
>>
>>I heartedly recommend it.
>
>Yes - I have no problems with UCP as a process for some people where it is
>appropriate for however long it takes.
>
>One of the biggest problems in research is projection of one's own case onto
>others. I know that I do it and have seen others do it.
>
>One has to recognize that one is doing it Then one hopefully moves toward
>escaping from it.
>
>Konchie has not yet realized that his case is his and that his critical
>perception of others is HIS case. Koos has a similar problem. As did AMmind
>man.
>
>Its actually quite a simple phenomena. Too much running overts and/or
>motivators leaving charge stacked up on a misowned flow 3.
>
>Flow 3 gets skimpily treated by many in auditing when its often the most
>highly charged flow. The persistent F/N from the overt flow carries through
>and flow 3 gets missed.
>--
>
>Ralph Hilton
>http://Ralph.Hilton.org
>Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org

==================================================

Dear Ralph:

Thanks for writing.

I'm quite well aware that my case is my case. The possibility you have overlooked is that my PERCEPTIONS of others may stem from my LACK of case in some areas. As for Flow Three, here is a report of others with clearing experience comparable to yours doing UCP on others, and THEIR perceptions and changes therein. They will be posting much more soon.

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

=========================================

Dear Mr. Penday,

I was on staff at the L.A. Org from 1971 to 1975, and, after my release, I was
peripherally involved in the church for another seven years, until I became a
statistic in the great purge of '82.

At that time, I was informed by the junior gods of the church that I would
lose my immortal soul without access to "Source". Stung, I replied that it
seemed unlikely that a human agency would have that kind of control over my
soul, and I disconnected. I then spent another ten years involved in the
latest and greatest "independent field" breakthroughs, as I attempted to
cleanse myself and assert my OTness despite the Church's dire malediction. I
hit bottom in 1992 and turned to the New Age, where I did find real help
through a process known as the Sedona Method.

I soon married a marvelous man, also ex-Church; we agreed to be partners in
the journey to self-knowledge. However, I would became quite rabid if the
dreaded cult was mentioned to me, and I refused to even discuss the subject
except in the most scatological terms. When my partner began regularly lurking
on alt.religion.scientology a few years ago, it was one of the few topics that
could produce a fight between us.

In March, he approached me with your UCP. Ever ready to throw the baby out
with the bath water, I fought against the idea of trying anything that had the
faintest whiff of Scientology on it. He convinced me to at least read your
research, and the humor and clarity of your writings overcame my terrors.

Since then we have witnessed about 40 hours apiece for each other. Within the
first few sessions, a remarkable thing happened. I, the avowed org-hater, was
able to reconcile my experiences in the Church, accept my various stupidities
and delusions, and thus find a little peace. Of course, the price was the
horrific realization that I had been in hallucination (and lower!) most of my
life. (This also explained why I took mind-altering drugs in the '60s. I was
trying for a more pleasing and aesthetic hallucination than the reality of
life as I then saw it.) It is startling to really see and feel myself change tone.

A delusional self-image is a comforting security blanket in the depths of
lower tones, but letting go of it has been more than worth it. I have no idea
where the UCP will take me, and it's certainly a rocky road at times (maybe
I'm approaching self-pity?), but I bless the divine chance that brought this
tool to us and thank you most thoroughly.

Yours,

Mudrunner

P.S. For what it's worth, I received L's auditing on the Flagship Appalling in
'71 and was ostensibly OT III by '75. (Hardest confession: I was also a reg.)

Bryan <ryanqlee@hotmail.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:19:22 -0700, in message <3765B82A.2743E833@hotmail.com>:

Dear Bryan:

You are SUCH an idiot!
I can't imagine WHY you keep on posting . . .
unless of course, O$A pays you per post.

>K wrote:
>>> Let's see if you can "WALK YOUR TALK," as they say!
>
>I did, as R2-21,

R2-21 is NOT UCP. It's not even CLOSE. The fact that you IDENTIFY them shows you have LITTLE OR NO ABILITY to discriminate, and are way beyond being a flaming idiot.

For the lurkers, let me briefly recap the huge MISHMASH of processes known as R2-21 ("Granting of Beingness") from "Creation of Human Ability."

" . . . demand of the preclear, 'WHERE ARE YOU FROM?' and then continue to repeat this question on and on and on, no matter what answer the preclear gave, until the preclear replies that he is from right where he is. At which time the auditor changes the question to 'WHERE IS THAT?' . . . "

"He can be asked why the environment is there, and for every answer simply ask again why what he is looking at is there."

"WHO WOULD GRANT BEINGNESS TOO . . . ?"

"WHO WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT TO HAVE GRANT SOME BEINGNESS?"

"WHAT ELSE WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT FOR . . . (the person he has named) TO GRANT BEINGNESS TO?"

"WHO ARE YOU EATING FOR?"

"WHO ARE YOU DOING OTHER THINGS FOR?"

"An additional process is to simply have the preclear say to himself, 'I AM HERE.'"

"A variation is to have him look at various objects and the walls of the room and predict that they will be there in ten seconds, then, to have him count off the ten seconds and find out whether or not they are there."

Now that you have conclusively demonstrated your awesome analytical abilities, the lurkers may rise to their feet and applaud your powerful and completely unparalleled perspicacity.

GET A CLUE, IDIOT!

>to a fantastic result EP.

And this "fantastic EP" was what?
GLEE?
The ability to OUTFLOW ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF IRRELEVANT IDIOCY?
Your incredible analytical powers?
Your awareness level of CRIMINALITY, which causes you to FORGE CANCELS of others posts, and then COMPLAIN when they "bash" you for your criminal idiocy?

PLEASE TELL US, BRYAN!
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

>That's why I add my
>recommendation. I currently trying other OT processes on the emeter.

Your idiocy IS trying. Fortunately, you are a wonderful example of a $cientology product to educate all the lurkers.

>Someone pointed out to me that you try to communicate at the general
>tone of the newsgroup. Whew!

And who told you that their hallucinations were a reliable guide to my intentions?

>Arc, Bryan

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

===========================================

>anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>
>> "Ryan Q.Lee" <ryanqlee@hotmail.com> wrote in thread "UCP", on 14 Jun 1999
>> 19:52:55 -0400, in message <19990614234307.490.qmail@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> Dear Ryan:
>>
>> Thanks very much for recommending UCP.
>>
>> Now if you got a co-audit and RAN IT for a hundred hours, your life and
>> your awareness level would be totally transformed, and you would BEHAVE
>> much differently too.
>>
>> HERE'S THE CRITICAL QUESTION:
>> DO YOU THINK YOUR OWN ADVICE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO FOLLOW?
>>
>> Let's see if you can "WALK YOUR TALK," as they say!
>>
>> Konchok Penday
>> Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
>> <konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>
>>
>> FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
>> http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
>> "Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> >The following seems to be the core of UCP.
>> >
>> >---
>> >UCP COMMANDS:
>> >1] Tell me a place you have been.
>> >2] Compare that place to where you are now.
>> >3] Where might you be?
>> >4] Compare that place to where you are now.
>> >
>> >1] Tell me a View Point you have had.
>> >2] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>> >3] What View Point might you have?
>> >4] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>> >---
>> >
>> >This is very, very familiar to me. R2-21 Granting of Beingness in Route 2 of
>> >Creation of Human Ability.
>> >
>> >I heartedly recommend it.
>> >
>> >Arc, Ryan

VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 14 Jun 1999 22:46:04 -0400, in message <B0001066332@grizzly.ctinet.net>:

Dear Robert:

Thank you for writing. Comments within.

>At 21:08 14/06/99 -0400, Ralph Hilton wrote:
>>On 14 Jun 1999 19:52:55 -0400, in alt.clearing.technology "Ryan Q.Lee"
>><ryanqlee@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The following seems to be the core of UCP.
>>>
>>>---
>>>UCP COMMANDS:
>>>1] Tell me a place you have been.
>>>2] Compare that place to where you are now.
>>>3] Where might you be?
>>>4] Compare that place to where you are now.
>>>
>>>1] Tell me a View Point you have had.
>>>2] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>>>3] What View Point might you have?
>>>4] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>>>---
>>>
>>>This is very, very familiar to me. R2-21 Granting of Beingness in Route 2 of
>>>Creation of Human Ability.
>>>
>>>I heartedly recommend it.
>>
>>Yes - I have no problems with UCP as a process for some people where it is
>>appropriate for however long it takes.
>>
>>One of the biggest problems in research is projection of one's own case onto
>>others. I know that I do it and have seen others do it.
>>
>>One has to recognize that one is doing it Then one hopefully moves toward
>>escaping from it.
>>
>>Konchie has not yet realized that his case is his and that his critical
>>perception of others is HIS case. Koos has a similar problem. As did AMmind
>>man.

Robert's text:
>I have to agree with that assessment.
>
>Moreover I think he loses a lot of potential adherents to his method when he
>insists that it is the only process they will ever need,

That is NOT my assertion. I DO assert that it accomplishes far more than then entire Grade "B" Ridge of the criminal cult of the commode. After UCP goes flat, I have NO IDEA what you run then. No one has flattened it yet. I hope to find out fairly soon!

> and that it takes
>care of everything from considerations to GPMs.

That it certainly DOES DO.

>I don't think so.

Well, of course not!
You haven't ever RUN IT, you just DUB IN from your HALLUCINATIONS.

>It evidently didn't take care of his ser fac(s) or valence(s).

I'm SURE it has NOT taken care of MANY of my service facsimiles. I'm barely above zero on the tone scale. My valences or identity shifts, however, seem to be remarkably flat.

>His other problem is his shouting, authoritarian manners. He's not exactly
>what one would refer to as "a cool head".

And of course Mr. "ASSHOLE!" is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a "cool head" who never displays shouting or authoritarian manners. GET A CLUE, IDIOT! [Flame me, I shouted!]

>He comes off as someone who
>thinks his audience is made up of the deaf and dumb (read stupid).

YOU are NOT my audience, Robert, because you ARE rendered stupid by your massively solid service facs. The LURKERS are my REAL AUDIENCE. I just use you for a target.

>His
>diatribes remind me of the type of grandstanding professional "wrestlers" do
>when they go into a rant about their future opponent. No wonder so many
>have killfiled him. Besides, he has already shot his wad long ago. What
>more can he say than "Do U.C.P. That's all you'll ever need."

Overlooking the fact that you misquote me, there is a lot more to say. I have a whole series of Techtalk articles on HOW and WHY to run it, among other things. Besides, don't overlook the virtues of TR3 and TR4 for overcoming even massive aberration and comm lags.

>How many
>times do people need to hear the same thing said in so many different ways?

Until they get a clue.

>Isn't it enough that we had to go through months of reading about having
>been shot out of a volcano by a short fat man with wings and a bugle? Sheesh!

Sorry. NO, it's not enough. YOU don't have to read ANYTHING, however.

>If this post is considered a bit too scathing, well I'm sorry,

Don't apologize. I love "scathing" on all flows.

>but it's been
>my hat on this news group to be the brutally direct one.

And all this time I thought you were accusing ME of that!

>I like to think of
>it as the "keeper of the wake up call" hat. It's one I'm not immune to
>either when others wear it.
>
>Robert

Bzzzzzzzt! You're sleeping through the alarm, Robert.

WAKE UP NOW!

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 15 Jun 1999 01:26:49 -0400, in message <3765e0cf.6002220@mail.magnet.at>:

Dear Heidrun:

Thanks for your post. One of the things I greatly admire about you is your very considerable and consistent talent for the EXACT CONSIDERATION. Further comments within.

Earlier Dialog:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:42:20 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote in
><7k4kn2$o08$1@adore.lightlink.com>:
>
>>Bryan <ryanqlee@hotmail.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on Mon, 14 Jun
>>1999 19:19:22 -0700, in message <3765B82A.2743E833@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>Dear Bryan:
>>
>>You are SUCH an idiot!
>>I can't imagine WHY you keep on posting . . .
>>unless of course, O$A pays you per post.
>>
>>>K wrote:
>>>>> Let's see if you can "WALK YOUR TALK," as they say!
>>>
>>>I did, as R2-21,
>>
>>R2-21 is NOT UCP. It's not even CLOSE. The fact that you IDENTIFY them
>>shows you have LITTLE OR NO ABILITY to discriminate, and are way beyond
>>being a flaming idiot.
>>
>>For the lurkers, let me briefly recap the huge MISHMASH of processes known
>>as R2-21 ("Granting of Beingness") from "Creation of Human Ability."
>

Heidrun's Comments:
>Konchok,
>
>you have often prompted me to try and use UCP and claimed that
>it outcreates all other processing.

Yes. Everything else I have seen, at least.

>I had a back-off and couldn't
>really explain it to myself, as I am normally eager to look at
>promising materials and see what I can get out of them for myself
>(and possibly others).

Muy Bueno!

>I just understood the backoff: If you look at your lines above
>in a new unit of time (and they are pretty representative for what you
>write in other posts), you will find that they contain a lot of
>contempt for other people and their work.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I have HUGE contempt for Bryan Quigly, who is a know-nothing newbie with huge pretensions of expertise and self-importance, and a well-known USENET CRIMINAL. Exactly what about him do you admire? I give him what he deserves.

>It is not that simple. You can't sweep away a lifetime's work
>with such a generalized move. It needs MUCH more differentiation.

Surely you are not talking about Bryan's lifetime of work . . . forging cancellations and posting one-line "responses" to other people's posts . . . from his hallucinations and missing data.

If you are talking about LRH's lifetime of work, on the whole it is a self-evident FAILURE by it's ACTUAL PRODUCTS AND STATS. I discuss the SPECIFICS in hundreds of posts.

>Here I spotted my postulate "If that is what UCP produces,
>I don't want to get there; if it is not what UCP produces but
>just what UCP doesn't handle, I don't want to go that way either."

OK. Would you rather be a Quigly, Ducharme, or Tommy/ZerO$A/Ra/Fang One/Senor Cee Ess *Sector 5*? They're all pimping for the failed technology I thoroughly TRASH. I don't apologize for trashing it . . . it's destroyed MANY LIVES. I offer something MUCH BETTER.

I don't advertise myself as a case completion. I'm barely above death. You don't have to like me AT ALL to go WAY BEYOND my tone level with UCP. I'm 2.0 on a good day.

>Personally I believe that every processing sooner or later will
>end up in the area of a spiritual being's energy emanations and
>their frequencies and interactions with other being's emanations.

I agree completely. BTW, you didn't know me BEFORE UCP.

We haven't always gotten along, but in general OUR interraction has been quite pleasant.

>I miss the "interaction with others" in your process.

I don't understand this comment. UCP is a coached process, and the spiritual/personal interaction between the client and coach is very profound. The strongest relationships I have today are with those people I have coached on UCP. . . several of them decades ago.

>There are other people around, you know. They are not just a part
>of your stage's scenery.

I agree totally. When they ACT like people, I show them EVERY COURTESY. When they are blazing idiots, dramatizing hallucination, enemy, and criminality, I bluntly point that out. I think that is a competely appropriate policy, and I make no apology for it. Do you disagree?

Do you feel I have savaged YOU? If not, why not? Might it have to do with differentiation?

>Heidrun Beer
>
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

best wishes,

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 15 Jun 1999 04:22:50 -0400, in message <37660b6a.16909654@mail.magnet.at>:

>On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:02:54 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote in
><7k50h9$7oe$1@adore.lightlink.com>:
>
>>Yes, you are absolutely correct. I have HUGE contempt for Bryan Quigly,
>>who is a know-nothing newbie with huge pretensions of expertise and
>>self-importance, and a well-known USENET CRIMINAL. Exactly what about him
>>do you admire? I give him what he deserves.

>Maybe; but doesn't this keep your energy interchange with him
>in a low-level zone?

I'm not in control of their energy or tone level. They are responsible for that. When they exude lies, confusions, errors and so forth, my attempt is simply to point out what is what.

>Why not simply duplicate and understand
>all about a person, without adjusting to their level?

I DON'T adjust to their level. I DON'T exude lies, confusions, errors and hallucinations. I merely bluntly label those thing as what they are, for the edification of lurkers. If the idiots were talking just to me, I would merely avoid and ignore them, but they are talking to a lot of people who don't know any better, and I want the correct data to be available to them. I agree that antagonism, at 2.0, is far below aesthetics, at 6.0, but 2.0 is FAR above symbols, hallucination, liability, doubt, and enemy, where most of the people I trash are coming from.

>Did you ever try to communicate on YOUR level, despite all
>the things you had duplicated before?

Of course! Have you read my web site, and my TechTalk series of articles? Those are my independent originations. You are objecting to my antagonism towards idiots and liars.

>If I spot a non-satisfying tone-level in a connection, I simply
>take the lead and introduce a tone or energy-frequency which
>I consider desirable - I don't tune in to a level which I don't like.

Maybe as I come up tone I will change my policy on this. For now, when people tell lies about me, UCP, what I have said about it, or anything else about clearing, I stomp them hard.

>>>I miss the "interaction with others" in your process.
>>
>>I don't understand this comment. UCP is a coached process, and the
>>spiritual/personal interaction between the client and coach is very
>>profound. The strongest relationships I have today are with those people I
>>have coached on UCP. . . several of them decades ago.
>
>Oh, certainly! What I meant with "I miss the interaction" was to
>look at the interaction with others while running the process.

That's certainly a MAJOR subject which is ALWAYS addressed IN DETAIL by the client.

>MEST circumstances are certainly important to view in order
>to understand the completeness of an incident or another charged
>time in your life; but looking at the creations of others -
>telepathic or physical - is the essence; this is what actually
>interferes with you own intentions.

Maybe I still don't get import of your comments? The client uses UCP to spend huge amounts of time looking at his interractions with others. Relationships, interractions, roles, activities, emotions, states of mind, etc., are ALL naturally examined with the process. Did you somehow think this was not true, or am I just not getting what you mean? WHATEVER the client has attention on is addressed. Naturally, his interractions with others are PRIMAL.

>Heidrun Beer
>
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 15 Jun 1999 10:57:57 -0400, in message <B0001067522@grizzly.ctinet.net>:

Dear Robert:

Thank you for writing.

>At 00:42 15/06/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 14 Jun 1999
>
>I take back what I said. My post was actually NOT scathing enough for a
>wake up call.

Scathing foolishness is still . . .
I DID enjoy the scathing aspects.

>Seems K's oversoul is still asleep while the circuits
>continue to prattle on.

I heard your circuits prattling on.
If you want an acknowledgement, you have to originate.

>Fortunately, his gross lack of discernment (one would think his
>differentiatiation process done over a period of years would have handled
>that),

Comments on MY lack of discernment from the "ASSHOLE!" man are not overly daunting.

>his chronic valence (dictator? only one?)

Am I dictating YOUR thoughts? I used to be the only one posting here about UCP, but coincidentally, as more people are actually USING it, there are more people endorsing it.

>and ser fac dramatizations

News Flash: I don't have to do ANYTHING to make YOU wrong.

>(like anybody who disagrees with him is an "idiot")

Some idiots disagree with me.
Not everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.
Please tell me about (whose?) lack of discernement.

>make him relatively harmless

Yes, I'm not spouting lies, confusions, and deadly errors.

>as few take him seriously.

Apparently that IS true.

I only know TWO people from the NG who are USING UCP.

Below is their PATHETIC TALE OF THE "DISASTER" UCP HAS LED THEM TO.

>Robert

How are your GPM's today?

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

"HORROR" STORY OF UCP:
=======================

Dear Mr. Penday,

I was on staff at the L.A. Org from 1971 to 1975, and, after my release, I was
peripherally involved in the church for another seven years, until I became a
statistic in the great purge of '82.

At that time, I was informed by the junior gods of the church that I would
lose my immortal soul without access to "Source". Stung, I replied that it
seemed unlikely that a human agency would have that kind of control over my
soul, and I disconnected. I then spent another ten years involved in the
latest and greatest "independent field" breakthroughs, as I attempted to
cleanse myself and assert my OTness despite the Church's dire malediction. I
hit bottom in 1992 and turned to the New Age, where I did find real help
through a process known as the Sedona Method.

I soon married a marvelous man, also ex-Church; we agreed to be partners in
the journey to self-knowledge. However, I would became quite rabid if the
dreaded cult was mentioned to me, and I refused to even discuss the subject
except in the most scatological terms. When my partner began regularly lurking
on alt.religion.scientology a few years ago, it was one of the few topics that
could produce a fight between us.

In March, he approached me with your UCP. Ever ready to throw the baby out
with the bath water, I fought against the idea of trying anything that had the
faintest whiff of Scientology on it. He convinced me to at least read your
research, and the humor and clarity of your writings overcame my terrors.

Since then we have witnessed about 40 hours apiece for each other. Within the
first few sessions, a remarkable thing happened. I, the avowed org-hater, was
able to reconcile my experiences in the Church, accept my various stupidities
and delusions, and thus find a little peace. Of course, the price was the
horrific realization that I had been in hallucination (and lower!) most of my
life. (This also explained why I took mind-altering drugs in the '60s. I was
trying for a more pleasing and aesthetic hallucination than the reality of
life as I then saw it.) It is startling to really see and feel myself change tone.

A delusional self-image is a comforting security blanket in the depths of
lower tones, but letting go of it has been more than worth it. I have no idea
where the UCP will take me, and it's certainly a rocky road at times (maybe
I'm approaching self-pity?), but I bless the divine chance that brought this
tool to us and thank you most thoroughly.

Yours,

Mudrunner

P.S. For what it's worth, I received L's auditing on the Flagship Appalling in
'71 and was ostensibly OT III by '75. (Hardest confession: I was also a reg.)

VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 15 Jun 1999 13:56:29 -0400, in message <B0001067864@grizzly.ctinet.net>:

Earlier Dialog:
>At 12:22 15/06/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 15 Jun 1999
>>10:57:57 -0400, in message <B0001067522@grizzly.ctinet.net>:
>>
>>Dear Robert:
>>
>>Thank you for writing.
>>
>>>At 00:42 15/06/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>>>VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 14 Jun 1999
>>>
>>>I take back what I said. My post was actually NOT scathing enough for a
>>>wake up call.
>>
>>Scathing foolishness is still . . .
>>I DID enjoy the scathing aspects.
>>
>>>Seems K's oversoul is still asleep while the circuits
>>>continue to prattle on.
>>
>>I heard your circuits prattling on.
>>If you want an acknowledgement, you have to originate.
>>
>>>Fortunately, his gross lack of discernment (one would think his
>>>differentiatiation process done over a period of years would have handled
>>>that),
>>
>>Comments on MY lack of discernment from the "ASSHOLE!" man are not overly
>>daunting.
>>
>>>his chronic valence (dictator? only one?)
>>
>>Am I dictating YOUR thoughts? I used to be the only one posting here about
>>UCP, but coincidentally, as more people are actually USING it, there are
>>more people endorsing it.
>>
>>>and ser fac dramatizations
>>
>>News Flash: I don't have to do ANYTHING to make YOU wrong.
>>
>>>(like anybody who disagrees with him is an "idiot")
>>
>>Some idiots disagree with me.
>>Not everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.
>>Please tell me about (whose?) lack of discernement.
>>
>>>make him relatively harmless
>>
>>Yes, I'm not spouting lies, confusions, and deadly errors.
>>
>>>as few take him seriously.
>>
>>Apparently that IS true.
>>
>>I only know TWO people from the NG who are USING UCP.
>>
>>Below is their PATHETIC TALE OF THE "DISASTER" UCP HAS LED THEM TO.
>>
>>>Robert
>>
>>How are your GPM's today?
>>
>>
>>Konchok Penday
>>Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
>><konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>
>>
>>FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
>>http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
>>"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"
>>
>>"HORROR" STORY OF UCP:
>>=======================
>>
>>Dear Mr. Penday,
>
>---------snip-------------

Robert's post with my comments:
>Yes, yes. Okay, you got one win.

Close, but it wasn't my win. In fact, it was TWO other people who got MAJOR WINS in just a few sessions . . . that were unobtainable in the cult . . . and in the rest of the Freezone. They have such great indicators they are auditing a session each almost every day.

>We've all read it many times.

If you're tired of it, stop reading it.
If you'd like similar wins, RUN UCP.

>Makes you seem like you have alzheimers
>disease that you keep repeating yourself.

What an apropos criticism from a man in the compulsive habit of reposting entire articles with the single added word "ASSHOLE!" How many hundreds of times have you done that Robert? Do you find any IRONY in your motivators on this subject?

>As for the rest of your post, it makes my point.

Is that the "ASSHOLE!" point?

>Read it again and see if
>you don't detect ser fac activity, like compulsive argumentiveness, "tit for
>tat" arguments. That's how children argue.

By reposting "ASSHOLE!" over and over again? Why not try "Did too! Did Not!" or "My dad can beat up your dad!"? That's not compulsive argument displaying service facs, is it?

>Your bank is showing, Konchok.

I'm sorry, but your motivators or not MY bank.

>You would do much better in your "conversations" if you talked TO people
>instead of AT them.

Is that the philosophical foundation of your entire "ASSHOLE!" series?

>And you would be doing YOURSELF a favor too. Whether
>it was intended or inadvertant, maybe Bryan's mention of R2-21 was a hint as
>to the process you REALLY need more than any other.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider the "ASSHOLE!" man competent to C/S my case.

>Two more possible valences you might be dramatizing, by the way: the God
>valence, and the messiah valence. That would make everyone else either loyal
>followers or heathens.

It would be more productive for you to examine your case than your hallucinations re mine. Those are YOUR items, not mine. I'm actually more in the market for CO-CREATORS.

>Robert

I'm sorry I have only that one field report on UCP right now. However, you might notice that *100%* of the NG people who I know are coauditing UCP are THRILLED with it. Very soon I will have some other field reports and success stories for your entertainment. Hopefully, that will generate enough interest that OTHERS will also start co-auditing. Then I will have MORE field reports [good or bad] for you to read. I hope to have a plethora of them very soon.

Have you hugged your GPM's today?

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 16 Jun 1999 12:17:50 -0400, in message <B0001070926@grizzly.ctinet.net>:

>At 05:01 16/06/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>....a lot of not much, which I deleted for brevity.

I LOVE how you always delete my entire post, so you don't have to confront ANYTHING.

>Let's see if I can peg you down.

Actually, I think the phrase would be either "pin you down" or "take you down a peg." We'll let the lurkers make their own determinations on the success of your endeavors.

>You took a well known simple Scientology process from the '50s,

And WHICH process might that be? I keep asking, but I NEVER get an answer, [unless you count Lester's recent ASTOUNDINGLY INSANE assertion that R2-21 = UCP].

>modified it a little, put a label on it,

Again, WHICH process might that be?

>(releasing it on Christmas day of last year -
>how convenient)

Don't you think it was appropriate to make a gift on that day? I hope you weren't expecting a lump of coal instead? That's the first day I had the materials in postable form, so I posted.

>and then made a whole (presumably one man)

Your presumption is in grevious error. Please reread the recent UCP CO-AUDIT FIELD REPORT that you complain you have read too many times . . . but never understood.

>movement out of
>that calling it "God's Church", and yourself "God's prophet",

Your TOTAL inability to duplicate even simple words and phrases is very sad.

>and then armed
>with that as your whole basis of operation,

UCP is the basis.

>set out to prove everyone else wrong

I set out to get others USING UCP. I am STILL about that.

>about what they'd learned about the tech, undermine clearing tech as a
>whole,

How can you UNDERMINE an unworkable destructive pseudo-technology. I merely POINT OUT the lies, errors, confusions, pretenses and TRUE stats that you ignore and gloss over.

>bash Hubbard who originally conceived of your tech,

If he concieved of it, why didn't he teach it and use it? Pretty stupid, huh?

If pointing out that a "totally sane and clear spiritual leader" is ACTUALLY a heavily boozing liar, drug addict, criminal, and raving insane psychotic is "bashing" . . . I say "BASH AWAY!"

>bash anybody who
>disagrees with you calling them idiots,

I call idiots idiots, usually when I indicate their idiocy.

Not everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot, but it helps.

>and prop yourself up as the new
>"king of the hill", the new "messiah" for the millenium.

You obviously haven't even bothered read my web site:
**YOU** ARE THE MESSIAH!

>Dennis Stephens with his "time breaking" and Rowland Barclay (I believe it
>was him) before him had both come up with similar techs using the comparison
>technique as the basic modus operandi.

Does SIMILAR mean IDENTICAL to you?

What is your point?

>They did this back in the 80s, and
>maybe conceived of it well before that.

And what is your point?

UCP was concieved BEFORE the 80's, as if that was somehow relevant to its workability.

>And their tech was far more
>elaborate, meaning they did their homework and covered many bases.

You have it backwards. The more elaborate, the more narrow and useless. E=MC^2 is a classic example of SIMPLICITY IS POWER, and shows completed homework and covered bases. YOU WORSHIP COMPLEXITY AND MYSTERY. WORKABILITY is the only test.

>But their tech never really took over the free zone.

Maybe it wasn't promoted right? Maybe it didn't work very well? I don't know.

>It was incomplete.

That might explain it!

>Palmer's Avatar was billed as doing everything your tech claims to do.

And Hubbard BILLED himself as a sane spiritual leader. What is your point?

>It was good too, but incomplete.

From what I have seen if it, it is NOT good. It's just another way to flop around in below-death pretenses and valences.

>So your tech is neither original (well, maybe 1% is),

You keep asserting that, but you NEVER show where I stole it from.

>nor is it any end-all tech as you claim.

And this assertion is based on what? Your missing data, zero experience, and hallucination?

>I think your whole operation is about boosting your ego at the expense of
>others, and little else.

Maybe you could explain how UCP operates at the expense of others? I don't even charge for it. I give ALL the materials away for FREE at my web site. Your thoughts are irrelevant.

>You can say whatever you want about me, like you normally do, but it won't
>detract from the above facts one iota.

If I could find one iota of FACT in your rambling irrelevant rants, I would be impressed.

>As I've said many times, I have nothing against alternate routes, or even
>against you personally,

Good! Me too!

>I just don't care for somebody bullying his way into
>center stage while attempting to kick everyone else off.

I don't understand your metaphor. I just present my viewpoints. So do you. You are just as "center stage" as I am. Have I cut your comm in some way? Or are you just motivating?

>One other thing. I'll bet you that you sincerely believe yourself to be the
>reincarnation of either Jesus Christ, Gautama Siddhartha, Moses or Mohammed.
>Am I right?

How dare you ask me questions about my case, you SQUIRREL! Anyway, by "standard tech" Jesus never existed, and the Commode was Gautama Siddhartha. That leaves Moses or Mohmammed, who I hope I was not. I'd hate to burden myself with even MORE amends projects. Anyway, what is your point? Does that relate somehow to the workability of UCP?

>Robert

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "UCP", on 29 Jun 1999 15:08:50 -0400, in message <Pine.SUN.3.96.990629150636.4185A-100000@light.lightlink.com>:

> Konchie, here's another one for you.
>
> What do you mean when you say someone is 'below death'
>on the tone scale. Hubbard used to say this a lot, do
>you mean the same thing?

I'm not sure exactly what he meant.

> What does it mean?

I use it to mean that the person IS dramatizing below death / lower condition phenomenae, NOT that he has no awareness at all above death. Obviously, if you look at any one subset of his life, he may be in any tone level at all, right up to total create. I mean that there are unresolved case manifestations that compel him to act out below death behavior that is obvious enough to be visible to me. It's not a statement about his highest awareness, but about his lowest and limiting ones. It's about him, in toto, as a being, displaying lower tones.

> How does one know if one is below death or not?

In general, just assume you are.

For DETAILS, print out and study the CHART.

Most of what people generally consider "case" is below death. Actually, it's only about half, but the tone levels above death are relatively virgin territory for most people AS CASES.

EFFORT, THINK, SYMBOLS, EAT, SEX, MYSTERY, WAIT, UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND UNKNOWABLE are *ALL* below death. That's right from the cult scale. How many people do you know that are above effort? Most cases are down around MYSTERY OR LOWER.

If they have any below death phenomenae from the CHART, they are below death IN THAT AREA at least. This would include as very common obvious indicators, but certainly not be limited to: "PTS", "roller-coaster", "INT-EXT", manic-depressive, any kind of valence shifting [if he's shifting valences, he is NOT himself], ELATION, GLEE, CRIMINALITY, etc.

> Thanks Homer
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "UCP", on 29 Jun 1999 15:09:05 -0400, in message <Pine.SUN.3.96.990629150532.4103A-100000@light.lightlink.com>:

>
> OK, Konchie bear with me now.
>
> Say I print out your UCP chart and put it on my wall.
>
> How do I locate myself on that chart?

Just keep LOOKING at it until things start to indicate. Consider the MULTIPLE COLUMNS as different manifestations of the same thing until you start to duplicate and understand the whole gestalt of existence at any tone level. The lower tones are inversions or pretenses of the higher ones, and most people are desperately EFFORTING to be above death. Ooops!

> I *HATE* charts that I am off the bottom on, you know what I mean?

I know what you mean. That's why 0-4 is so useless. The NICE thing about -40 to +40 is you're NOT on the bottom [or you wouldn't care] and there's lots of room for improvement!

> Homer
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30 Jun 1999 05:47:05 -0400, in message <199906300945.FAA02118@adore.lightlink.com>:

>In article <7lbhar$26k$1@adore.lightlink.com>, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "UCP", on 29 Jun
>>> What does it mean?
>>I use it to mean that the person IS dramatizing below death / lower
>>condition phenomenae,
>
> OK, I understand that there are chart items arranged 'below
>death', but I still don't get what below death means, how can someone
>or something be 'below death'. That sounds at first glance like
>rhetoric not a technical concept.

The SCALES are one the few things in the cult which I actually find extraordinarily USEFUL.

> Can you clarify how someone can be at death or below and still be
>alive and functioning.
>
> Zombies at an encounter group: "Hey I just had a near life
>experience!"

$cientologist$ should be so lucky!

> Thanks Homer

Tone level is an abstraction of characteristics of a BEING. Life is an activity or doingingness of some kind OF THE BEING. The descent through the plus tone levels records the gradual destruction of that activity, ending in the DEATH/FAILURE OF THAT ACTIVITY at tone zero. Below death, a series of SUBSTITUTE activities come into play, and the ORIGINAL activity no longer survives. These actions SUBSTITUTE and later OPPOSE the original one.

You start out as a musician, and your activity is something like PLAY MUSIC. As you go down tone, your ability to play deteriorates from whatever causes, until the MUSICIAN is finally at DEATH because he is completely unable to play music. He is in FAILURE.

If you continue DOWN the tone scale. Some SUBSTITUTE / LIABILITY beingness and activity takes over. You become a MUSIC CRITIC, and WRITE ABOUT MUSIC. Sometime later, when you are fired from that job, you become an AGENT. When you go bankupt as an agent, you become a LOBBYIST and start a political campaign to BAN cRAP MUSIC. To the MUSICIAN, the MUSIC CRITIC, AGENT, and LOBBYIST are WAY below death. Those lower condition / below death beingnesses and activities betray and undo the original beingness, purposes and activity that failed at tone zero = death / failure. They move nothing forward. At best they move mostly sideways and slightly backwards in LIABILITY, and then rapidly backwards as you descend the tone scale in the lower harmonics of life.

There ARE things MUCH worse than death . . . to the BEING.

Another example: You are a SEEKER of enlightment, trying to CLEAR your own mind. When you totally FAIL, you go into substitute/ liability, and become a $CIENTOLOGIST. That caves you in even more, and you become a REG to earn money for your "processing". When your reg stats crash, you join the O$A and work full-time as a CRIMINAL to DESTROY the SPs who prevent clearing. What happened to the SEEKER? DEATH! What's going on now? GOALS, PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIES WAY BELOW DEATH!

Make Sense?

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30 Jun 1999 05:55:42 -0400, in message <199906300953.FAA02446@adore.lightlink.com>:

>In article <7lbhr2$2i0$1@adore.lightlink.com>, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>> How do I locate myself on that chart?
>
>>Just keep LOOKING at it until things start to indicate.
>
> OK, I am going to *DO* this Konchie. But again I warn
>you I hate charts that I am below the bottom on.
>
> Homer

DON'T WORRY!

Even your cold hard heart won't go below zero degrees Kelvin!

You may be lying on the floor looking down, but you can't go below the floor! And if you're lying on a pile of shit and black mass . . . that raises you ABOVE the floor! Cheer up!

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30 Jun 1999 06:13:27 -0400, in message <1du77kg.dnll921xw38zsM@pm16-14.magicnet.net>:

>Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, I understand that there are chart items arranged 'below
>> death', but I still don't get what below death means, how can someone
>> or something be 'below death'. That sounds at first glance like
>> rhetoric not a technical concept.
>
>It means that the being's body, automaticities, social responses, etc.
>are more present than he is. It's one of those Scientological points
>that begs for reevaluation.
>
>Ted

Dear Ted:

I am certainly not a phatsophile, and have "total freedom" to trash the "tech," but I do find the SCALES to be extraordinarily useful. Their alignment in the CHART, and the perception of what it means to be "below death" is what actually drove the research which resulted in UCP.

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Anon@Anon.net (Anon) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:52:51 GMT, in message <3780211e.1665458@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:

>On 30 Jun 1999 06:13:27 -0400, ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) wrote:
>
>>Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I understand that there are chart items arranged 'below
>>> death', but I still don't get what below death means, how can someone
>>> or something be 'below death'. That sounds at first glance like
>>> rhetoric not a technical concept.
>>
>>
>>It means that the being's body, automaticities, social responses, etc.
>>are more present than he is. It's one of those Scientological points
>>that begs for reevaluation.
>
>A starting point would be differentiating (I'm trying UCP, too)

WAY COOL!

Please post here or email me if you have comments or questions.

>whether one is referring to death of the BODY, the MIND, the SPIRIT.

I generally see the BODY as a totally separable issue. Body dies, it's done. PERSON or spirit is still there, starting over again.

The SPIRIT IS the person. That's WHO we are dealing with.

I don't see the MIND as an independent entity. I see it more as simply the sum total to date of the being's internal create, an extension of the being, who resolves the mind by the same processes of look, see, consider, decide, etc., that he used to create it in the first place.

>( Those are three three components I have some concept of. If there
>are other components, someone please amplify).

You can make as many artificial distinctions as you want, but I think that suffices.

>Presumably not
>spiritual death because that is the component I equate with "theta" or
>"soul",

I would say FAILURE [of beingness] is spiritual DEATH, and below that the being IS/DOES something ELSE. [If I can't be your LOVER, I WILL be your WORST NIGHTMARE!]

>although there may be others who list "soul" as yet another
>component of the "being". Or might there be those who would even list
>"being" as one level removed from "static"? I would not.

I think it's mostly semantics. I have little personal reality on the difference between the two.

>I wonder whether there is any community of opinion on something as
>simple as a baseline definition of "death". Would appreciate
>comments.
>Anon

More discussion in my reply to Homer today in this thread, message: <7lddj9$h6o$1@adore.lightlink.com>

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30 Jun 1999 13:12:19 -0400, in message <199906301710.NAA23017@adore.lightlink.com>:

>Ted Crammer (ted@magicnet.net) wrote:
>>It means that the being's body, automaticities, social responses, etc.
>>are more present than he is. It's one of those Scientological points
>>that begs for reevaluation.
>
> OK, Konchie, this is another thing I would like to know.
>
> If we are all below death on the tone scale etc, how did all
>these scales come into being going up to +40 etc.

You can look at the entire process in a smaller universe. There is -40 to +40 process on learning to tie your shoes. Lots of VERY BRIGHT auditors spent many thousands of hours observing PCs doing objective processes, goals processes, and everything else under the sun, and saw the same emotional sequences replayed over and over and over again.

> Who had the height to see what was up there if we were all
>looking from down in the minus area including Hubbard.

If you take the clients' ENTIRE universe, and his condition AS HIMSELF AS A BEING, there are almost certainly below-death manifestations. However, you can watch someone run through the entire tone scale on a narrowly defined limited process in a few hours.

>How can we trust these higher scales if no one is actually
>upthere to verify them.

The SCALES you can see in smaller arenas. Of course, to imagine what the BEING would be like at tone +40 AS HIMSELF IN HIS NATIVE BEINGNESS requires some extrapolation.

>Lots of deludees probably *CLAIM* to be up there, right?

Of course. In fact, they may actually be in POWER on HALLUCINATIONS!

> Homer

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30 Jun 1999 13:31:49 -0400, in message <1du7rr2.12h92xi1fekws8M@pm21-07.magicnet.net>:

>KP wrote:
>> I am certainly not a phatsophile, and have "total freedom" to trash the
>> "tech," but I do find the SCALES to be extraordinarily useful. Their
>> alignment in the CHART, and the perception of what it means to be "below
>> death" is what actually drove the research which resulted in UCP.

>Cool. We'll get along just fine.

Oh goody! A new friend!

>The scales are at least 3-dimensional not 2-dimensional as they appear
>on paper.

Yes!

The CHART is a thinking tool EXTRACTING ASPECTS of reality.

The map is NOT the territory.

There is a further aspect or dimension of intensity or volume.

There are also MIXTURES of tones and HARMONICS of tones. Like a musical note, you are not resonating only at one frequency. And you can move between octaves, not by sliding smoothly and continuously UP the tone scale, but by changing the MIXTURE of HARMONICS at which you are resonating. Increase the upper frequencies while reducing the lower ones, and you have JUMPED an octave or two. This is one of the secrets of OT0 and other forms of stillness meditation, which can bump you up into harmonics of serenity.

>Ted

I was thinking about my interchange with Homer, and I realized that the four conditions of existence ALSO plot smoothly on the CHART. I'll have to revise it to add an extra column.

SANITY SCALE FOUR CONDITIONS

+40

DIFFERENTIATION AS-ISNESS

+20

ASSOCIATION ISNESS

0

IDENTIFICATION ALTER-ISNESS

-20

DISASSOCIATION NOT-ISNESS

-40

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30 Jun 1999 13:33:05 -0400, in message <1du7rnm.mx0rl81phs0muM@pm21-07.magicnet.net>:

>KP wrote:
>> Make Sense?

>Good analysis, Scientologically speaking.
>
>--
>Ted

You really know how to hurt a guy!

Konchok

Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30 Jun 1999 19:55:23 -0400, in message <199906302353.TAA12211@adore.lightlink.com>:

>anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>You may be lying on the floor looking down, but you can't go below the
>>floor! And if you're lying on a pile of shit and black mass . . . that
>>raises you ABOVE the floor! Cheer up!
>
>Ah hope shines eternal with you Konchock.

I spent a LONG time in the black pits.
If you look around down there, you'll see my "Kilroy" on every damn rock.
One of the biggest events of my life was finding the gates of hell.

> But let me clarify my concerns.

Clearify away!

> You know inspite of how low tone everyone says I am, usually
>when I tell them I am dead inside, physically dying, can't feel
>any emotion etc, they say, oh come on homer you are one of
>the most alive uptone people I know, you write with such emotion
>you gotta be joking us here. Lightnin and others have even accused
>me of trolling the group with my case condition, and *THAT* pisses
>me off into the murder levels.

OK

> So the truth is as a being I am highly compartmented, kind
>of like I built this thermo nuclear bomb shelter and put all the charge
>in it, along with my time track, memory, emotion etc, and the space
>I left myself to live in, in the bomb shelter, is relatively
>unenturbulated and that's where I write and work from.

JUST MY IMPRESSION, but it's starting to sound like DISSASSOCIATION and BEING NOTHING to me. "Me here, charge there, nothing to do with me."? That would go along with the BLACK MASSES and UNCONSCIOUSNESS you talk about. It does NOT make ANY difference what I think or if I am right in that evaluation. YOU PICK THE ITEMS to look at, NOT the auditor. NO UCP case actions or based on right or wrong tone level assessments.

>So people tell me I sure sound clear as clear comes, but
>its only this tiny little bunker that has a clear space buried
>in eons and eons of *IMPENETRABLE* solid rock, tar and amber.

> So when I go to look at your charts, or into session with anyone,
>I am always afraid I am going to be running this superficial 'nothing
>to run, everthings ok' crap that I call my life, because emotionally
>'nothing is wrong', but physically its all leaking in and killing me.
>
> Homer

One of the most marvelous and reliable aspects of UCP is that, WHATEVER the client's attention is on, IS what he needs to look at. In this case, "I am always afraid I am going to be running this superficial 'nothing to run, everthings ok' crap that I call my life," would be a PERFECT starting point. A little COMPARING to where you might be and where you have been, and you would be off and running. Then SOMETHING ELSE will appear to look at.

Of course, that might not be what your attention was on when you actually got into session, but it doesn't make any difference. WHATEVER is there when you look, is what you will see. And whatever you see IS the right item. When it is no longer the right item, you WILL SEE something else. No lists. No assessments. No listing and nulling. NO WRONG ITEMS.

Hey, you SURVIVED 100 hours of Philbert's auditing.
You are INDESTRUCTABLE!

Best wishes,

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Christine <xine@altavista.net> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 1 Jul 1999 11:18:09 -0400, in message <4.1.19990701080521.03c9d740@pop.lightlink.com>:

>At 03:21 AM 7/1/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 30
>>Jun 1999 19:55:23 -0400, in message

>>>So the truth is as a being I am highly compartmented, kind
>>>of like I built this thermo nuclear bomb shelter and put all the charge
>>>in it, along with my time track, memory, emotion etc, and the space
>>>I left myself to live in, in the bomb shelter, is relatively
>>>unenturbulated and that's where I write and work from.

>>JUST MY IMPRESSION, but it's starting to sound like DISSASSOCIATION and

>You're courting disaster, Konchie!

Thanks for the nuclear detonation advance warning.

>Many others, including me and most noticeably LaMont, have walked the path
>you are heading down.

Oh dear! It's worse than I thought. I've only seen a couple of victims before.

>I believe with all my heart that Homer must not only find and walk his own
>path,

Agreed.

>he must create his own path with a machete. Best not stand in his way.

Maybe the nuclear strike is already on it's way. I was hoping to defuse the situation with all that talk about it doesn't make ANY difference where you start, you do the SAME thing.

I was hoping he would use UCP to chop away at his CASE, distracting him from ME.

Terminal Stupidity, Huh?

Thanks for all the love.
It's been wonderful knowing you.
I'd like:

"He Bozo'd Ace,
Blew His Grace,
Lost His Face,
Threw The Race,
On Homer's Case!"

on my tombstone.

>Love (four letters for Konchie but then I know Sten's secret),

You made it all worthwhile!

Everybody knows Sten's secret . . . he's a Feeeel Thy Swede.

[My secret is . . . I have no secrets.]

>Christine

Konchok

Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 2 Jul 1999 20:03:10 -0400, in message <199907030001.UAA04780@adore.lightlink.com>:

>Christine (xine@altavista.net) wrote:

Konchok wrote:
>>>JUST MY IMPRESSION, but it's starting to sound like DISSASSOCIATION and

Homer wrote:
> For the record, the indication sounds correct although
>understated.

I'll take that as a BIG WIN!
I tried to understate it as much
as possible and still be audible.

Christine wrote:
>>You're courting disaster, Konchie!
>
>>Many others, including me and most noticeably LaMont, have walked the path
>>you are heading down.
>
> LaMont? LaMont, whose every word out of his mouth consumed
>more than it produced?
>
> LaMont was too busy having contempt on me to provide any
>usuable insight.
>
>>I believe with all my heart that Homer must not only find and walk his own
>>path, he must create his own path with a machete. Best not stand in his way.
>
> I don't know, Konchie seems to be accessible.

Two BIG WINS in one post.
I'd better quit right NOW!

> Homer

Konchok

"C. B. Willis" <cbwillis@netcom.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 2 Jul 1999 18:32:35 -0400, in message <199907022230.PAA11033@netcom11.netcom.com>:

>Robert Ducharme and I co-audited the UCP this week by phone.

Thank you for your experimental time and energy.
Thank you very much for your excellent session report.
I am VERY GLAD you are interested enough in UCP to DO something.
You doubled to center field! . . . but you got picked off trying to steal third!

>First I audited Robert 1 hour, then we decided to end off

Why did you decide to end off?
Something was happening you didn't like?
My guess is it was just starting to WORK.

>and
>I squirreled something he said toward the end to something that
>felt like it shifted some energy, a mini-breakthru at the end.

UCP is NOT concerned with mini-breakthrus in the MIDDLE of the process. EVERY time I have stopped there it has been a WRONG action. Usually, I lost the client right there. It is STILL the middle of the process until you have come FULL CIRCLE and the client is integrating EVERYTHING he has looked at in the ENTIRE session. Sounds like you set off on a great journey and pulled over the first time they played a different song on the radio.

>I felt the UCP process could be useful for
>surfacing items to run with other processes.

If UCP surfaces an item, it will also HANDLE it in that very same session . . . MUCH faster than any other process could . . . when you COMPLETE the session to FULL EP.

>Robert audited me for almost a half hour, whereupon I was trying
>to dig deep for stuff to run other than physical locations (which I felt
>were going nowhere casewise), and I got disgusted and bored and felt
>nothing was happening.

A PERFECT ITEM! DIG NO DEEPER! MINE THAT GEM:
"I got disgusted and bored and felt nothing was happening."

It WAS starting to work.
Something was TURNING ON!
*NOT* a reason to end off!
*THE* reason to CHARGE AHEAD!
That IS your window of opportunity for HUGE TA and CASE GAIN.

It's STILL there, waiting patiently for you to come back and visit with eyes wide open.
I'll hazard a guess there is an entire symphony in your universe built on that very theme.

If that still doesn't indicate as a "place" to you, I imagine there are other times when you felt the same way. You could look at any one of them. And that segues perfectly into where you might be . . . and other reactions you could have to the same situation besides ending off.

>was not willing to continue despite
>Robert's urging and encouragement.

Good for him for attempting to keep you going! Maybe he really IS getting the hang of it. He just didn't see how SUCCESSFUL he was to TURN ON the HOT ITEM in your universe . . . and he forget to use his secret weapon: "Ever felt like this before?" Do it again . . to EP!

>Robert was using a meter, and said I had very
>unusual meter activity, like 1/10th division rises and falls, rather than
>larger rises and falls that he's used to seeing.

You were still working the TA INTO the process.

>Robert has run me on
>his own process some time ago, so he's used to seeing what my energy
>looks like on the meter, though not lately. I doubt it would change that
>much in general pattern, or even pattern between people.

I don't use a meter, as I think it's unnecessary and distracting. If YOU do something different, it seems quite logical to me that the METER should do something different too.

>We both concluded that the process could be useful
>for identifying items to take up with other processes,

I'm very certain that would be a waste.
If UCP turns it on, UCP will turn it off.

>but didn't feel we got gains from the UCP

I agree completely. You would KNOW if you had. You just turned something on and bounced out of session because you didn't have enough experiece to recognize that the process WAS WORKING, and weren't certain WHAT to do about it. Now maybe you can see why I say DON'T SOLO . . . you would not have lasted nearly as long on your own.

>and couldn't conceiving running it for 10-25 hours.

Of course not! You just turned something on and made it more solid. It probably felt like more of the same old same old: it WAS, and you DID. You didn't HANDLE anything or SEE anything new. When you COMPLETE a few sessions, it will look MUCH different to you.

>I had high hopes for the process

GOOD! When you start completing sessions, they will be OVER-FULL-filled.

>since I got a spontaneous yawn that felt like charge blowing
>every time I read thru the process by myself, considered the process, on
>the 3rd command - where might you be? But it ran differently, and I was
>surprised about that.

You cannot accurately IMAGINE what will happen when you RUN it. If you could, you would already be a PERFECT MASTER, and would have NO CASE at all to run. Surprise is good!

>I was too impatient and used to faster results to continue.

BINGO!
There is your HOT ITEM again, in different words.
THAT was unpleasant enough to CONTROL your actions.
*THAT* IS YOUR *REAL* CASE ENTRY POINT!
GOOD WORK!

>Perhaps not a fair trial on that account,

NO! It was a perfectly fair trial. You just didn't recognize what was happening, and made the MOST COMMON error I have made running UCP . . . bouncing out when it starts to WORK!

>but I'm trying to be fair in
>expressing what happened for us.

Thank you very much for your thorough and candid report. I hope my comments have indicated to you, and clarified what happened enough for you to jump back in and DO IT!

>- CBW

Best Wishes,

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 2 Jul 1999 23:09:07 -0400, in message <B0001117101@grizzly.ctinet.net>:

Dear Robert:

Thanks for your excellent efforts with CBW.
You got the process STARTED GREAT.
You just didn't quite see WHAT
was happening and how to FINISH it.
I've made the same mistake myself.
Fortunately, it is VERY easy to repair.
JUST ANOTHER UCP SESSION!

>At 19:45 1999-07-02 -0400, Ted Crammer wrote:

>>C. B. Willis <cbwillis@netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps not a fair trial on that account, but I'm trying to be
>>> fair in expressing what happened for us.

Ted:
>>Okay, understood.
>>
>>I am certain KP will have a reply.

Posted above in the thread.

Still Ted:
>>Nevertheless...
>>
>>Simplifying phone processing one more step probably puts us right back
>>at solo. There are many processes which can be run solo but I wouldn't
>>put objectives or UCP high on the list.

As I noted in my reply to CBW, you can see
from her session exactly WHY UCP will NOT solo.
It works "TOO GOOD," and dumps you
*DEAD CENTER* INTO YOUR CASE.

>>When a being brings a body to the session he brings his case and places
>>it in close proximity to a potential source of restimulation, that
>>source being the processor (being plus mind plus body). Early in the PDC
>>lectures LRH said that a person's body ~is~ his case. I believe he was
>>correct to a large degree and I am not talking about Dianetic case.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but Robert got the hot stuff TURNED ON over the phone just fine. With a little more experience, he might have pulled the session off just fine by phone. I don't recommend it, as plenty of HEAVY stuff often turns on that I can't imagine handling by phone, but I'm sure you could win from time to time on the phone. I want to win EVERY SESSION, not just some of the time. Otherwise, you lose clients at the first mistake.

>>I think that if processor and client were together as
>>~persons~ your responses would have been different.
>>Ted

That could very well be, and I'm not sure how you would test it. On the other hand, I'm also sure that UCP will PLOW THROUGH your entire case, and eventually HIT EVERY ROCK.

Robert:
>I haven't found any corelation at all between presence of body and case
>gain. I get the exact same results either way. Beings are what's
>important, not bodies.

I think you're probably right about this. [There, I SAID IT! You may quote me!] I'm very optimistic about videophonic UCP, but I don't think phone alone is sufficient for heavy stuff.

>TA action is relatively easy to get with most any standard
>repetative style process - whether by phone or in person.

TA yes, but I don't see the FULL EP, except through UCP.

>As far as I'm concerned, the UCP
>process doesn't get enough TA action (coinciding with little case change) to
>warrent further investment of my time. It got barely any movement at all,
>which is highly unusual for me.

I hope my comments have given you a new viewpoint on what was happening.

>My attitude was neutral on it all along,
>but for some reason not a whole lot happened -
>in either direction of flow.

You were in the TURNING ON THE CASE phase. It doesn't LOOK LIKE something is "happening" until the RESOLUTION phase where the client starts SEEING and integrating.

>I was actually surprised at this.

Surprise is good!

>I thought I could get some TA from most
>any process just by virtue my super personality.

You were get*ING* TA, but you forget to take it to
the checkout counter and bring it home with you.

>That didn't didn't happen, to my dismay.

Thanks for your high hopes. They ARE justified.
Just pick up your shopping cart right where you left it.
No one will take your case away from you.

>So I guess I couldn't get TA action from
>reading off phone book pages either. :-)

Probably not. Eventually you might cognite it IS a waste of timel

>Maybe others would care to try the process out and either
>confirm our results, or maybe come up with different results.

I think YOU will get much different results by seeing more clearly what WAS ALREADY happening, and CONTINUING the process [perhaps with the judicious application of "THE SECRET WEAPON"] to FULL CIRCLE and FULL EP. You ran the revs up fine and got the ship up to takeoff speed, but you forgot to pull back on the stick and launch that bird into the air. No harm done. Just taxi around and do it better next time. You'll be FLYING SOON!

>Maybe Ted would care to give it
>a whirl and find out for sure about it.
>
>Robert

Thanks for your excellent efforts.

You are *SO CLOSE* to "GETTING IT!"

When the penny drops, the lights go on,
and you *SEE* how SIMPLE IT *IS*!

Best Wishes,

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 3 Jul 1999 15:04:35 -0400, in message <B0001117982@grizzly.ctinet.net>:

>At 14:21 1999-07-03 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 2 Jul 1999
>>23:09:07 -0400, in message <B0001117101@grizzly.ctinet.net>:
>>
>>Dear Robert:
>>
>>Thanks for your excellent efforts with CBW.
>>You got the process STARTED GREAT.
>>You just didn't quite see WHAT
>>was happening and how to FINISH it.
>>I've made the same mistake myself.
>>Fortunately, it is VERY easy to repair.
>>JUST ANOTHER UCP SESSION!
>
>---------snipped for brevity----------
>
>Konchok,
>
>I appreciate your optimistic remarks, but in my mind the jury is still out
>on your process.

How could you be convinced at this stage?
I'm just trying to get you to finish what you started.

>I'm still not convinced - or even near it, but I would be
>willing to try it again with someone at a later date.

Good.

>And even at that, it
>would take more than a few successes, assuming that would take place, to
>convince me that it would handle ALL case, and that all other processess
>would be undercut.

Of course.

I'm not trying to get you to believe, just to test it thoroughly.

>That claim is totally outside of my willingness to
>accept or even consider at this time.

OK

>Robert

Konchok

"C. B. Willis" <cbwillis@netcom.com> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 3 Jul 1999 18:04:13 -0400, in message <199907032202.PAA08510@netcom14.netcom.com>:

>Forwarded message:
>From: anonymous@electra.lightlink.com
>Subject: Re: UCP
>Date: 3 Jul 1999 13:12:58 -0400

CB:

I wasn't there for your session, so I don't KNOW what happened, but I can give you my comments based on doing a lot of UCP. Everything you say here simply reinforces my original impression of what actually happened in your bogged session with Robert.

>"C. B. Willis" <cbwillis@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Robert Ducharme and I co-audited the UCP this week by phone.
>
>>First I audited Robert 1 hour, then we decided to end off
>
>Konchok writes:
>:Why did you decide to end off?
>
>We felt like nothing was happening, wasn't going anywhere.

Typical for the first hour. Sounds like a CLASSIC UCP somatic to me. You are SUPPOSED to feel a little crazy, out of it, disturbed, uncertain, etc.. That IS your CASE! If you felt like everything was under control, and you were making smooth predictable progress toward a known and comfortable goal, THEN NOTHING *REALLY WOULD* BE HAPPENING.

>:Something was happening you didn't like?

>Yea, like nothing happening.

Still sounds like a CLASSIC UCP somatic to me.
EXACTLY the kind of thing it would be VERY IMPORTANT to handle.

>:My guess is it was just starting to WORK.

>That's interesting, but was not our intuitions on the matter.

The whole point of CASE is that it is aberrated. That is BY DEFINITION *THE* area where your intuitions are innacurate, useless, backwards, or dead wrong. To audit by intuition gets you NOWHERE, in a great big hurry. If you just take whatever your attention is on, and keep following that thread of attention, at the end of session you WILL know where you WERE.

>>and
>>I squirreled something he said toward the end to something that
>>felt like it shifted some energy, a mini-breakthru at the end.

Using energy or effort to create effects on your case is LIABILITY. The point of UCP is to LOOK AT your case, not to DO SOMETHING TO IT. As-isness, NOT alter-isness.

>:UCP is NOT concerned with mini-breakthrus in the MIDDLE of the process.
>:EVERY time I have stopped there it has been a WRONG action.

>I was pleased with the results of the extra action taken.
>I know in my heart it was the right action to take at the time,
>and I'd take it again if I had it to do over.

OK, but that is NOT UCP, that is you following your heart.
Don't confuse that with testing UCP. Two very different animals.
"Follow your heart" is NOT a powerful clearing process.

>:Usually, I
>:lost the client right there. It is STILL the middle of the process until
>:you have come FULL CIRCLE and the client is integrating EVERYTHING he has
>:looked at in the ENTIRE session. Sounds like you set off on a great
>:journey and pulled over the first time they played a different song on the
>:radio.

>Possibly, but not my assessment then or now.

OK. I'm just telling you how it sounds to a guy who has seen it go full circle many times.

>>I felt the UCP process could be useful for
>>surfacing items to run with other processes.
>
>:If UCP surfaces an item, it will also HANDLE it in that very same session .
>:. . MUCH faster than any other process could . . . when you COMPLETE the
>:session to FULL EP.

>I question that. When I dig deeply to surface items in my own session,
>neither of us could see how they could be resolved using the UCP.

That's the whole point. You CAN'T see in advance where it is going to wind up. If you KNEW before hand, you wouldn't need to audit. The whole cult dogma is backwards. You don't figure out WHERE the charge is and WHAT you are GOING to audit in advance, and then root it out like a bulldozer digging a sewer line. You start from UNKNOW and wind up in KNOW. At the end of the session you know where the charge WAS and what you DID audit.

In the middle of the session NOBODY has a CLUE, much less KNOWS, even what is going on, much less HOW it will resolve. For you to insist on this at the beginning stage of the process simply means you are not running UCP. Your are doing something ELSE.

>>Robert audited me for almost a half hour, whereupon I was trying
>>to dig deep for stuff to run other than physical locations (which I felt
>>were going nowhere casewise), and I got disgusted and bored and felt
>>nothing was happening.
>
>:A PERFECT ITEM! DIG NO DEEPER! MINE THAT GEM:
>:"I got disgusted and bored and felt nothing was happening."

>I did run the impatience. Might have run the disgusted also.

But it didn't come around full circle and you didn't see how EVERY place you looked at in the session was tied together as ONE reactive item, place or situation in your mind. From my experience, that simply means you did not continue and complete the process to EP.

>:It WAS starting to work.
>:Something was TURNING ON!

>I saw that possibility and ran it at the time.

I'm confused. You don't "run out" the session to make it work and get an EP, you complete it. Recognizing that something is a possibility does not make it happen. You have to take the proper actions to create the effect you want to achieve. One glance is NOT enough.

>:*NOT* a reason to end off!
>:*THE* reason to CHARGE AHEAD!
>:That IS your window of opportunity for HUGE TA and CASE GAIN.
>:It's STILL there, waiting patiently for you to come back and visit with
>:eyes wide open.
>
>:I'll hazard a guess there is an entire symphony in your universe built on
>:that very theme.

>I doubt it. If anyone here who knows me well thinks that disgust, boredom,
>or impatience are key life themes for me, I invite them to speak up now.

I expect it is just the opposite. From your heavy attention on being very energetic, getting results right away, asserting high causation, finishing things quickly, etc., I'm guessing you compulsively AVOID disgust, boredom and situations that make you impatient. I thought you WERE telling me that you WERE impatient to get results, and it was taking TOO LONG. That still sounds like a classic somatic and *HOT* item to me. YMMV. In this instance, UCP runs like a mental objective process, and you would probably go crazy if you had to spend a lot of time duplicating and making very small and VERY SLOW motions with a book.

>That's not to say these emotions are entirely foreign, but I'd say they
>are infrequent and appropriate to the circumstance when they do manifest.

I think they are very appropriate for a UCP session, and the appropriate response is to CONTINUE until you find out where they are coming from and why they WERE turning on.

>:If that still doesn't indicate as a "place" to you, I imagine there are
>:other times when you felt the same way. You could look at any one of them.
>:And that segues perfectly into where you might be . . . and other
>:reactions you could have to the same situation besides ending off.

>It does and did indicate as a kind of place, and I did run it.

Good.

>It did not segue to anything else.

Probably because you ended off and didn't finish the process cycle.

>>was not willing to continue despite
>>Robert's urging and encouragement.

>:Good for him for attempting to keep you going! Maybe he really IS getting
>:the hang of it. He just didn't see how SUCCESSFUL he was to TURN ON the
>:HOT ITEM in your universe . . . and he forget to use his secret weapon:
>:"Ever felt like this before?" Do it again . . to EP!

>I doubt I would get an EP out of that.

Sounds like another somatic to me. A hidden standard kicking in of what should be run and how it should be run and what you expect to happen and what the EP should be. Again, you are not running the process to make yourself right about you opinions, but to FIND OUT what has actually been going on in your mind, and why you think, believe, feel, or act as you do.

>Maybe some transient mild amusement,but not what
>I would consider an EP or anything of permanent
>value casewise.

To me, that sounds like an unfounded opinion about what might happen in the future evaluated against a hidden standard of what your case ought to be or look like. That is simply using your case to evaluate your case. I don't think it's a workable approach. You CANNOT know what will happen or how things will resolve or what the solution might be until AFTER it happens. To think that you can and do is simply YOUR CASE running your life.

>>We both concluded that the process could be useful
>>for identifying items to take up with other processes,

>:I'm very certain that would be a waste.

>On what grounds do you base that certainty?

Because I have observed:
>:If UCP turns it on, UCP will turn it off.

And I DO NOT see any other processes HANDLING things to completion.

>I'm not at all convinced of that.

How could you be?
You didn't finish the process cycle.
You haven't had a win.
It probably just seems like a waste of time to you.

>>and couldn't conceiving running it for 10-25 hours.

>:Of course not! You just turned something on and made it more solid. It
>:probably felt like more of the same old same old: it WAS, and you DID. You
>:didn't HANDLE anything or SEE anything new. When you COMPLETE a few
>:sessions, it will look MUCH different to you.

>I feel no incentive to go at the process again.

I would expect not. You think it was a
boring waste of time, and you avidly avoid that.

>>I had high hopes for the process

>GOOD! When you start completing sessions, they will be OVER-FULL-filled.

>>since I got a spontaneous yawn that felt like charge blowing
>>every time I read thru the process by myself, considered the process, on
>>the 3rd command - where might you be? But it ran differently, and I was
>>surprised about that.

>:You cannot accurately IMAGINE what will happen when you RUN it. If you
>:could, you would already be a PERFECT MASTER, and would have NO CASE at all
>:to run.

>Doesn't follow.

Not? Why? It's seems elementary. Why RUN anything? Why not just IMAGINE running the clearing course, or OT3, or anything else, and get all the cogs and gains that way? Easy!

>:Surprise is good!

>I don't see surprise by itself as either good or not-good.

My experience is that handling your case ALWAYS has some element of surprise in it, when you finally SEE what was going on all the time, that you kind of knew, but really didn't.

>>I was too impatient and used to faster results to continue.

>:BINGO!
>:There is your HOT ITEM again, in different words.
>:THAT was unpleasant enough to CONTROL your actions.
>:*THAT* IS YOUR *REAL* CASE ENTRY POINT!
>:GOOD WORK!

>I did run impatience, no useful result.

"It made me impatient and it didn't handle my impatience fast enough to satisfy me!"

Your case is NOT a trained dog that jumps through hoops on the first command. If it was, it wouldn't be a problem to you and you wouldn't need to handle it. It takes persistence!

Sounds to me like you were too impatient to FINISH the process cycle. I've said over and over again that I expect it to take an hour and a half or more [and beginning sessions often take longer while the client is getting used to the process and trying to use it at the same time]. But you were too impatient to do what is necessary to handle your impatience! I'd say you CERTAINLY got a HOT ITEM! To bad you bounced out, left it unflat, and blamed UCP.

>>Perhaps not a fair trial on that account,

>:NO! It was a perfectly fair trial. You just didn't recognize what was
>:happening, and made the MOST COMMON error I have made running UCP . . .
>:bouncing out when it starts to WORK!

>>but I'm trying to be fair in
>>expressing what happened for us.

>:Thank you very much for your thorough and candid report. I hope my
>:comments have indicated to you, and clarified what happened enough for you
>:to jump back in and DO IT!

>I appreciate the feedback, am hard pressed to find it applicable here.

I can only give you my viewpoint on how it looks to me. Sorry you didn't have a win.

>- CBW

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 4 Jul 1999 02:58:08 -0400, in message <3780053d.4593044@mail.magnet.at>:

>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 02:21:51 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote in
><7lmtiq$f5j$1@adore.lightlink.com>:
>
>>>:Something was happening you didn't like?
>>
>>>Yea, like nothing happening.
>>
>>Still sounds like a CLASSIC UCP somatic to me.

>How would "nothing happening" be a somatic? Are we re-defining terms?

>Heidrun Beer
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

No, not at all.

Please READ the WHOLE article.

Please don't quote one part of the article
out of context as though it represents the whole.

Nothing happening IS nothing happening.

Client impatiently asserting and protesting "nothing is happening," while spouting hidden standards, fixed ideas, and service facs, and bouncing right out of session, *IS* LOTS happening! She is DISPLAYING compulsive behavior, asserting rightness, making wrong, and dubbing in all at once, and can't SEE any of it. I'd say it's clearly WILDLY UNFLAT.

LOOK at what HAPPENED in the session.
I'm very surprised that you don't see it.
You generally seem to have a very good
grasp of the fundamentals of auditing.

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 4 Jul 1999 08:44:09 -0400, in message <377f5666.25370831@mail.magnet.at>:

Dear Heidrun:

What do YOUR materials state?

========================

>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 06:42:39 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote in
><7lncjn$ncp$1@adore.lightlink.com>:

>>Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 4 Jul 1999
>>02:58:08 -0400, in message <3780053d.4593044@mail.magnet.at>:

>>>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 02:21:51 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com
>>wrote in
>>><7lmtiq$f5j$1@adore.lightlink.com>:
>>>
>>>>>:Something was happening you didn't like?
>>>>
>>>>>Yea, like nothing happening.
>>>>
>>>>Still sounds like a CLASSIC UCP somatic to me.

>>>How would "nothing happening" be a somatic? Are we re-defining terms?

>>No, not at all.
>>
>>Please READ the WHOLE article.
>
>>Please don't quote one part of the article
>>out of context as though it represents the whole.
>>
>>Nothing happening IS nothing happening.
>>
>>Client impatiently asserting and protesting "nothing is happening," while
>>spouting hidden standards, fixed ideas, and service facs, and bouncing
>>right out of session, *IS* LOTS happening! She is DISPLAYING compulsive
>>behavior, asserting rightness, making wrong, and dubbing in all at once,
>>and can't SEE any of it. I'd say it's clearly WILDLY UNFLAT.

>None of this is in any way a somatic.

FOOLISH QUIBBLING

FALSE GENERALITY

DEAD WRONG

You are in the valence of a course supervisor.
SNAP OUT OF IT!

If you want to criticize my use of a word, and foolishly chide me for violating its definitions, you might at least cite the definition YOU are using to ascertain my "misuse" of a word.

>Please use terms that already have a definition in the way they
>are defined, or create new terms which are clearly different.

I don't have a cult dictionary to hand, but my ancient memory tells me it has something to do with pain, sensation, or emotion coming from the "reactive mind." Is that close enough?

>Heidrun Beer
>
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

Perhaps you would like to examine Carol's quotes from the very article you self-righteously dismissed, and tell me how they do NOT display or describe pain, emotion or sensation?

Or perhaps you would like to cite the definition YOU use, which is still HIDDEN DATA.

[start quotes]

>We felt like nothing was happening, wasn't going anywhere.
FELT LIKE

>>Something was happening you didn't like?
>Yea, like nothing happening.
DIDN'T LIKE

That's interesting, but was not our intuitions on the matter.
INTUITION

>and
>I squirreled something he said toward the end to something that
>felt like it shifted some energy, a mini-breakthru at the end.
FELT LIKE
SHIFTED SOME ENERGY

I was pleased with the results of the extra action taken.
I know in my heart it was the right action to take at the time,
and I'd take it again if I had it to do over.
PLEASED
KNOW IN MY HEART

>I felt the UCP process could be useful for
>surfacing items to run with other processes.
FELT

I question that. When I dig deeply to surface items in my own session,
neither of us could see how they could be resolved using the UCP.
NEITHER OF US COULD SEE

>Robert audited me for almost a half hour, whereupon I was trying
>to dig deep for stuff to run other than physical locations (which I felt
>were going nowhere casewise), and I got disgusted and bored and felt
>nothing was happening.
I WAS TRYING TO DIG DEEP
I FELT
I GOT DISGUSTED AND BORED AND FELT NOTHING WAS HAPPENING

>I did run the impatience. Might have run the disgusted also.
IMPATIENCE
DISGUSTED

>I doubt it. If anyone here who knows me well thinks that disgust, boredom,
>or impatience are key life themes for me, I invite them to speak up now.
DISGUST
BOREDOM
IMPATIENCE

>That's not to say these emotions are entirely foreign, but I'd say they
>are infrequent and appropriate to the circumstance when they do manifest.
EMOTIONS

>since I got a spontaneous yawn that felt like charge blowing
>every time I read thru the process by myself, considered the process, on
>the 3rd command - where might you be? But it ran differently, and I was
>surprised about that.
SURPRISE

>I was too impatient and used to faster results to continue.
IMPATIENT

[end quotes]

BTW, FWIW, IMO, compulsively making self right and others wrong by ignoring the big picture, focussing on small misduplicated details, and incorrectly referring to invisible data which is not cited IS ALSO A "SOMATIC," and a dramatization too. UCP handles those.

Just a thought.

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 4 Jul 1999 16:03:34 -0400, in message <3782b940.24158868@mail.magnet.at>:

>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:01:49 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote in
><7lo74b$aoq$1@adore.lightlink.com>:

>>FOOLISH QUIBBLING
>>
>>FALSE GENERALITY
>>
>>DEAD WRONG
>>
>>You are in the valence of a course supervisor.
>>SNAP OUT OF IT!

>If you could stop insulting people and giving them orders,
>maybe you would get somewhere, someday.

Who was it that insulted me with irrelevant quibbling? Who was it who couldn't tolerate my use of a word, and told me it was unacceptable to her? Who presumed to give me diction lessons, based on their misunderstoods, without even citing sources? You are STILL in the valence of a course supervior, and maybe even an ETHICS OFFICER! SNAP OUT OF IT!

I DO have a long way to go, but at least I got myself up above death on the tone scale.

You might try UCP some day. It works MUCH BETTER than whatever crap you have been using. It's quite possible you could still raise your hallucinatory make-wrong awareness.

>Who do you think you are talking to?

I AM talking to the person who couldn't duplicate what I said, couldn't evaluate importances, couldn't see and understand what happened in the session, is compulsively making herself right and me wrong, and who presumed to "correct" me with false facts, and then lecture me on MY "presumptousness." Who did you THINK I was talking to . . . Cryan Bryan?

>Your insolence makes you a no-terminal.

Then don't bother me with your foolish silly hair-splitting DEAD WRONG irrelevancies. Your compulsive laughable idiocy make you a no-brainer. I really don't need your nonsense.

At least MY insolence is based on CORRECT DATA.

What does that make YOUR insolence? CLUELESS IDIOCY?

>>If you want to criticize my use of a word, and foolishly chide me for
>>violating its definitions, you might at least cite the definition YOU are
>>using to ascertain my "misuse" of a word.

>>>Please use terms that already have a definition in the way they
>>>are defined, or create new terms which are clearly different.

>>I don't have a cult dictionary to hand, but my ancient memory tells me it
>>has something to do with pain, sensation, or emotion coming from the
>>"reactive mind." Is that close enough?

>No.

FLUNK!

Thank you for your gross stupidity and your incorrect evaluation.
BTW, you still haven't provided a source or a definition.

>The word's root is "soma", the body.

I KNOW what the root is.
That is NOT compellingly relevant to the technical usage in your favorite cult.

>A somatic is physical
>by nature. It is a case reaction that manifests in the body. There
>are all kinds of case phenomena, but it has to manifest in the body
>in order to be a somatic.

DEAD WRONG FALSE

GET A CLUE, IDIOT!

Here is Definition 1. from the "Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary" by L. Ron Hubbard:

1. by SOMATIC is meant a pain or ache sensation AND ALSO MISEMOTION OR EVEN UNCONSCIOUSNESS. There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to a feeling. Pains, aches, dizziness, SADNESS -- these are ALL feelings. Awareness, pleasant or unpleasant, of a body. (HCOB 26 Apr 69) [emphasis added]

Further down, in Definition 3, Mr. Hubbard states:
"To the Scientologist anything is a SOMATIC if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind and produces an awareness of reactivity."

Quite amazingly, that *IS* pretty close to the "pain, sensation or emotion" I quoted you from memory, that you didn't bother to look up before you spewed more arrogant delusive crap.

>If I were as confused about basics as you are,

CLEARLY, you are MUCH *MORE* CONFUSED about basics than I am. GACI!

>I would be a little more quiet and would
>hope that nobody notices my ignorance.

Then be VERY quiet, because it's WAY too late for people not to notice. If you shut up and listened, instead of compulsively ranting irrelevant error, you might actually learn something.

Free Clue: a little actual data goes a long way.

GACI!

>Heidrun Beer
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

Your inability to restrain your dramatizations is a product of your below-death out-of-valence case state. That situation will resolve when you get yourSELF out of lower conditions.

We went through a similar go-round once before when your obsessive misunderstoods on the DOUBT CONDITION coupled with your compulsive valences compelled you to incorrectly "correct" me. I gave you some very good free advice several times then. Apparently, it didn't sink it at all, so I'll repeat it here for you now:

"Please don't presume condescension to a power-hat old timer from your rank newbie status."

Better luck next time,

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Anon@Anon.net (Anon) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on Mon, 05 Jul 1999 11:45:04 GMT, in message <378198cf.157706693@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:

Dear Anon:

Thanks for writing.

It's nice to know there is someone who can duplicate lurking out there.

I appreciate your "concern" :-) for Heidrun, and your desire to save her from too painful a drubbing, but she repeated DEMANDED every stroke I gave her. I interpret aggressive obsessive antagonistic invalidative hallucinatory make wrong as a CRY for a big HELPing of ACTUALITY. I ignore it for a while, but eventually I give in and dish it out. When you BEG for it like she does, you have publicly boasted you can eat your own shit . . . with a smile! Not giving her what she repeatedly cries out for would be an INVALIDATION of her delusions :-)

As for using too heavy a club to beat your bitch . . . I go by the flow two rule of thumb . . . and SHE has a very wide thumb. TRUTH is extremely heavy . . . it's even denser than ironwood.

My fundamental motivation is NOT to protect her delicate delusions and make her hallucinations comfortable, but to REALLY HELP HER, by getting her to DO UCP and handle her case. She is currently BEING her case, and doesn't actually perceive that she HAS one at all. Repetitive indication of TRUTH in response to DELUSION may eventually give her the CLUE that she REALLY needs to handle HER CASE, NOT ME. I expect it to take a while.

My no-punches-pulled treatment of her is an AFFIRMATION of her toughness and ability, a RECOGNITION that she is a big being and a real powerhouse, and a PLEA for her to stop dramatizing insane failed solutions to insanity, and DO SOMETHING EFFECTIVE about her OWN CASE. When she does that, she will be an AWESOME ASSET to planetary clearing.

Best Wishes,

Konchok

==================================================

>My take: Heidrun. You struck the first blow, taking on a preachy,
>teachy attitude. Don't let your accomplishments go to your head.
>"Pride goeth before a fall" is still a useful admonition.
>
>KP is correct in stating that you never defined your terms and I
>believe he more than adequately gave you some pretty detailed
>definitions from LRH source which though you may no longer view as
>valid, is still generally used as a common ground for discussion in
>this NG.
>
>You antagonized, you preached, you did not support your assertion re
>his being wrong about correct definition.
>
>Swallow your pride and simply discuss the issues. Declaring someone a
>"no-terminal" is a very haughty thing to do. Not worthy of you.
>Your shit stinks just like everyone else's, despite your overblown
>view of yourself as some kind of unteachable master. That's how I
>view your conduct in this thread. I'm sure you don't, but that's my
>take and I think well of both you and KP. He uses too heavy a club,
>but you WERE insulting before he retaliated.
>
>Anon

=======================================================

>On 5 Jul 1999 00:18:04 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>
>>Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 4 Jul 1999
>>16:03:34 -0400, in message <3782b940.24158868@mail.magnet.at>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:01:49 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com
>>wrote in
>>><7lo74b$aoq$1@adore.lightlink.com>:
>>
>>>>FOOLISH QUIBBLING
>>>>
>>>>FALSE GENERALITY
>>>>
>>>>DEAD WRONG
>>>>
>>>>You are in the valence of a course supervisor.
>>>>SNAP OUT OF IT!
>>
>>>If you could stop insulting people and giving them orders,
>>>maybe you would get somewhere, someday.
>>
>>Who was it that insulted me with irrelevant quibbling? Who was it who
>>couldn't tolerate my use of a word, and told me it was unacceptable to her?
>> Who presumed to give me diction lessons, based on their misunderstoods,
>>without even citing sources? You are STILL in the valence of a course
>>supervior, and maybe even an ETHICS OFFICER! SNAP OUT OF IT!
>>
>>I DO have a long way to go, but at least I got myself up above death on the
>>tone scale.
>>
>>You might try UCP some day. It works MUCH BETTER than whatever crap you
>>have been using. It's quite possible you could still raise your
>>hallucinatory make-wrong awareness.
>>
>>>Who do you think you are talking to?
>>
>>I AM talking to the person who couldn't duplicate what I said, couldn't
>>evaluate importances, couldn't see and understand what happened in the
>>session, is compulsively making herself right and me wrong, and who
>>presumed to "correct" me with false facts, and then lecture me on MY
>>"presumptousness." Who did you THINK I was talking to . . . Cryan Bryan?
>>
>>>Your insolence makes you a no-terminal.
>>
>>Then don't bother me with your foolish silly hair-splitting DEAD WRONG
>>irrelevancies. Your compulsive laughable idiocy make you a no-brainer. I
>>really don't need your nonsense.
>>
>>At least MY insolence is based on CORRECT DATA.
>>
>>What does that make YOUR insolence? CLUELESS IDIOCY?
>>
>>>>If you want to criticize my use of a word, and foolishly chide me for
>>>>violating its definitions, you might at least cite the definition YOU are
>>>>using to ascertain my "misuse" of a word.
>>
>>>>>Please use terms that already have a definition in the way they
>>>>>are defined, or create new terms which are clearly different.
>>
>>>>I don't have a cult dictionary to hand, but my ancient memory tells me it
>>>>has something to do with pain, sensation, or emotion coming from the
>>>>"reactive mind." Is that close enough?
>>
>>>No.
>>
>>FLUNK!
>>
>>Thank you for your gross stupidity and your incorrect evaluation.
>>BTW, you still haven't provided a source or a definition.
>>
>>>The word's root is "soma", the body.
>>
>>I KNOW what the root is.
>>That is NOT compellingly relevant to the technical usage in your favorite
>>cult.
>>
>>>A somatic is physical
>>>by nature. It is a case reaction that manifests in the body. There
>>>are all kinds of case phenomena, but it has to manifest in the body
>>>in order to be a somatic.
>>
>>DEAD WRONG FALSE
>>
>>GET A CLUE, IDIOT!
>>
>>Here is Definition 1. from the "Dianetics and Scientology Technical
>>Dictionary" by L. Ron Hubbard:
>>
>>1. by SOMATIC is meant a pain or ache sensation AND ALSO MISEMOTION OR EVEN
>>UNCONSCIOUSNESS. There are a thousand different descriptive words that
>>could add up to a feeling. Pains, aches, dizziness, SADNESS -- these are
>>ALL feelings. Awareness, pleasant or unpleasant, of a body. (HCOB 26 Apr
>>69) [emphasis added]
>>
>>Further down, in Definition 3, Mr. Hubbard states:
>>"To the Scientologist anything is a SOMATIC if it emanates from the various
>>parts of the reactive mind and produces an awareness of reactivity."
>>
>>Quite amazingly, that *IS* pretty close to the "pain, sensation or emotion"
>>I quoted you from memory, that you didn't bother to look up before you
>>spewed more arrogant delusive crap.
>>
>>>If I were as confused about basics as you are,
>>
>>CLEARLY, you are MUCH *MORE* CONFUSED about basics than I am. GACI!
>>
>>>I would be a little more quiet and would
>>>hope that nobody notices my ignorance.
>>
>>Then be VERY quiet, because it's WAY too late for people not to notice. If
>>you shut up and listened, instead of compulsively ranting irrelevant error,
>>you might actually learn something.
>>
>>Free Clue: a little actual data goes a long way.
>>
>>GACI!
>>
>>>Heidrun Beer
>>>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>>>http://www.sgmt.at
>>
>>Your inability to restrain your dramatizations is a product of your
>>below-death out-of-valence case state. That situation will resolve when
>>you get yourSELF out of lower conditions.
>>
>>We went through a similar go-round once before when your obsessive
>>misunderstoods on the DOUBT CONDITION coupled with your compulsive valences
>>compelled you to incorrectly "correct" me. I gave you some very good free
>>advice several times then. Apparently, it didn't sink it at all, so I'll
>>repeat it here for you now:
>>
>>"Please don't presume condescension to a power-hat old timer from your rank
>>newbie status."
>>
>>Better luck next time,
>>
>>
>>Konchok Penday
>>Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
>><konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>
>>
>>FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
>>http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
>>"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 5 Jul 1999 09:23:09 -0400, in message <3780b0b8.11975770@mail.magnet.at>:

>On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:41:58 -0400 (EDT), Anon wrote in
><378198cf.157706693@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:

>>Swallow your pride and simply discuss the issues. Declaring someone a
>>"no-terminal" is a very haughty thing to do. Not worthy of you.
>>Your shit stinks just like everyone else's, despite your overblown
>>view of yourself as some kind of unteachable master.

>Don't pretend to be two if you are one.
>
>Heidrun Beer
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

And by this enigmatically elliptical effort you are imprecisely inferring . . .
WHAT?

If that is an accusation that Konchok is posting as "Anon" . . . GIVE IT UP, you are simply demonstrating your own projected DUALITY. I don't need multiple valences, one is enough.
I would go crazy trying to run MY life with a course supervisor, a cramming officer, and an ethics officer, [plus unknown others] all running around in my head shouting nonsense at me.

If you mean something else, try saying what you actually mean, it makes it much easier for others to duplicate you and respond appropriately.

BTW, I notice that you SNIPPED almost the entire post you PRETENDED to respond to, and simply inserted an insultingly haughty NON-SEQUITUR. NO issues were addressed.

What's the matter? NO CONFRONT TODAY?

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Christine <xine@altavista.net> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 5 Jul 1999 10:17:28 -0400, in message <4.1.19990705071337.00a2cf10@pop.lightlink.com>:

>At 10:02 AM 7/5/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>
>>As for using too heavy a club to beat your bitch . . .
>
>Konchie, love,
>
>Now, now, it isn't seemly to carry on like that.
>You don't want to lose to
>to Mr. Hanky, do you?
>
>Kiss,
>
>Christine

Well . . . I really don't know.
That one went right over my head . . .
I don't have any idea who Mr. Hanky is.

If it's a reference to a tear-catching handerchief,
I'm not sure how or what I would lose to him.

If it's a person here on the NG, I don't know who.

Explicate me please?

Anyway, it got me a Kiss!
That's not too bad.

Konchok

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 5 Jul 1999 09:23:09 -0400, in message <3780b0b8.11975770@mail.magnet.at>:

On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:41:58 -0400 (EDT), Anon wrote in
<378198cf.157706693@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
[in response to Heidrun's frothing at Konchok's analysis of her hallucinations]
>>Swallow your pride and simply discuss the issues. Declaring someone a
>>"no-terminal" is a very haughty thing to do. Not worthy of you.
>>Your shit stinks just like everyone else's, despite your overblown
>>view of yourself as some kind of unteachable master.

Heidrun wrote in response:
>Don't pretend to be two if you are one.
>
>Heidrun Beer
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR

DELETES KONCHOK'S ENTIRE POST WHICH
THE COMMENTS BY ANON REFERRED TO

IT NEVER ADDRESSES KONCHOK'S POST

A BRAND NEW IRRELEVANT HALLUCINATION!

==========================================

Dear Heidrun:

Why the sudden deafening SILENCE in this thread?

You were dramatizing your delusions like mad, and hysterically accusing me of all kinds of hallucinatory crimes, based on your own misunderstoods, and couldn't even bother to look up the definition of the word you were inappropriately and erroneously ranting about.

When I posted the EXACT definition, proving that I was completely right, and you were completely wrong, you had NO RESPONSE. Instead, you IGNORED MY ENTIRE POST, and took another person's comment on it and used it as an excuse to [apparently, from context, you didn't answer my query] ACCUSE ME OF ANOTHER DELUSIONAL CRIME.

NO ADMISSION OF ERROR

NO APOLOGY FOR HALLUCINATION,
INSULT, AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS

INSTEAD, A BRAND NEW HALLUCINATION!

AND SILENCE!

You had plenty of time to post your gratis delusional rants against me, and plenty of time to post in other threads, but you just couldn't bring yourself to communicate about your errrors.

WHY COULD THIS BE?

In the absence of any communication from you, I can explain this in GENERAL TERMS from the UCP / CHART/ tone scale point of view. This is TYPICAL lower conditions behavior.

At some point, pre-$cientology Heidrun was exposed to $cientology, and confronted and had some awareness of her own RUIN or other undesireable case condition. As a solution to her problems, she bought into the HALLUCINATION that $cientology had the answers to the mind and it's problems, that "they" were making "clears" and that they/she/WE were the SOLUTION to insanity, and exporting wisdom and freedom to the planet. She replaced her failed/ problem/ lower condition identity with a NEW lower condition identity: "$cientologist."

DRAMATIZING THIS HALLUCINATION AND FALSE/SUBSTITUTE BEINGNESS, she began posting to usenet as "CLEAR BABY," [the name of her new valence] enthusuastically CHAMPIONING the heroic missionary efforts of $cientology on behalf of total freedom.

Of course, that solution didn't wash at all on usenet, as her HALLUCINATIONS and DELUSIONS about $cientology were RIPPED TO SHREDS by those who KNOW.

So she dumped parts of her false identity by acknowledging the reality of the criminality and contradiction of the ORGANIZATION of $cientology, and salvaged what she could of her TECHNICAL HALLUCINATIONS by leaving the cult and joining the "Free Zone". She dropped her "Clear Baby" valence, and took on a new one, becoming "CONCERN," and has since then been championing HER heroic missionary efforts on behalf of total freedom. She is deluded that she has handled HER CASE, and is promoting her ability to handle OTHERS' CASES, using the publicly disproved and derided technology of the raving psychotic criminal rum-soaked pill-popping drug addict lunatic "El Phatso." This NEW PRETENSE IDENTITY DOES "WORK" for her in making her living as a "PUBLIC SAVIOR" of deludees like KGB.

She doesn't recognize that this LIABILITY [or lower] PRETENSE identity *IS* HER CASE.

I make her HYSTERICAL by attacking the enormous LIES that her LIABILITY identity is FOUNDED ON. This undermines her entire BEINGNESS=CASE, and drives her crazy.

Doing an instant and unconscious DOUBT formula, she immediately decides I am the ENEMY, and lashes out with a furious attack. Unfortunately, her doubt formula is based, NOT ON FACTS, BUT UPON HER DELUSIONS AND HALLUCINATIONS, which is what she actually consults in HER universe in her FALSE APPLICATION of the doubt formula.

She is CERTAIN that I am wrong about my definition, and unwilling to tolerate my "error," because I attack her FALSE/ LIABILITY IDENTITY, which compulsively mocks up in a failed EFFORT to avoid being unmocked. This makes her UNABLE to consult ACTUAL FACTS.

When I completely demolish the FALSE FACTS upon which her HYSTERICAL hallucination is based, she simply mocks up a NEW HALLUCINATION OF MY "NEW CRIMES" and throws that out behind her as a lower-harmonic rear-guard action as she FLEES THE AREA.

There is *NOTHING* UNUSUAL about all this.

She is doing EXACTLY the same thing as Tom / Tommy / Ra / ZerO$A / Fang One / Senor Cee Ess *Sector 5* . . . and SIX BILLION other people on the planet. She is much more in touch with reality than Tommy . . . but she's still wildly hallucinating . . . and BELOW DEATH.

I point out all these things, not out of personal animosity, but to use her as an instant example to DEMONSTRATE HOW case works, and how people USE CASE to confront reality, instead of using reality to confront case. I was in the middle of analyzing CBW's session to point out HOW UCP turned ON her case, and HOW her case bounced her out of session, when my analysis turned on Heidrun's case, and she made her DRAMATIC entrance.

Heidrun has made her false identity into a public presence. A perfect example of case!

This leads me to my MAIN POINT. UCP turns on these dramatizations, allows you to SEE them, and BLOWS THEM OFF, eventually returning you to your native identity at DEATH. Above zero, UCP handles the aberrated ideas, computations, actions, etc. of the real "YOU."

I use public technical poseurs to illustrate case conditions because it gives the LIE to the incredible HOAX of "LRH Standard tech" . . . which will NEVER handle these BASIC case conditions, in many years of effort and many thousands of hours of auditing. When *YOU* can actually SEE THE CASE of Cryan Bryan, Safe, Tommy, Heidrun, AND LRH HIMSELF, then you can SEE that THE CULT'S CRAP *NEVER* WORKS! When you DISCARD the UNWORKABLE, you finally have a REAL CHANCE at finding the ACTUAL SOLUTION.

THE ONLY WORKABLE TOOL I HAVE SEEN
TO ACTUALLY HANDLE CASE . . . . . IS UCP!

PLEASE CO-AUDIT UCP!

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 6 Jul 1999 02:28:42 -0400, in message <3784a06b.4663796@mail.magnet.at>:

Dear Heidrun:

Thank you for the fascinating non-response.
Your ACTIONS prove my analysis of your case condition to be PERFECT.
BTW, STILL no apology for your nasty delusional ranting and raving about nothing.

Lurkers may note that instead of RESPONDING to my points, and doing something sensible [like APOLOGIZE for your delusional rudeness], you have decided to DRAMATIZE SEX, EATING, GLEE, MYSTERY and HIDING [as in NO RESPONSE to me re stupid issues YOU ORIGINATED] ALL right there in ENEMY where I identify your condition lately. I know you CAN'T CONTROL this, as it is an automatic response of your compulsive identities, but PERHAPS you can still SEE it. I think this will be VERY amusing for many lurkers.

>Paul had warned me that this post was waiting for me in my mailbox.
>"What a marvellous product of UCP!" he says.

We were discussing technical definitions, and when you CRAPPED OUT on that topic, HOW your CASE prevents you from duplicating. Is HIS opinion about anything relevant to that?

>I say: "Have you written this to him?", and Paul: "I am fine with
>picking up 5 pounds of slimey slugs in the garden, but I don't need
>to talk to SUCH a guy."

That's fine. I wasn't originating to you.
You may go back to your slugs now.

>So it's up to me again. Sigh. That's
>my destiny with this man. He handles the easy stuff like the slugs,
>and I end up talking to Konchok.

Of course, YOU WANTED to talk to Konchok. You originated a whole bunch of nasty make-wrong delusional error to me, BECAUSE YOU HAD TO. . .YOUR CASE MADE YOU DO IT! NOW you want to pretend this is some kind of noble burden that has been thrust upon you . . . after dramatizing your arrogant ignorance and creative case all over usenet. You dished out a whole bunch of insults and put-downs . . . based on hallucination and error, and when I point them out . . . I get more insults. Didn't you ever hear of apologizing for nasty error?

>On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:21:15 -0400 (EDT), anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote in
><7lrobp$797$1@adore.lightlink.com>:

>>Dear Heidrun:
>>
>>Why the sudden deafening SILENCE in this thread?

>Because I am working on an urgent programming cycle for my client
>that has to be delivered? Because I am not discussing with
>screaming idiots as a matter of principle? Both?

If you didn't use the hopelessly complicated unworkable auditing technology you do, you probably wouldn't have "urgent" programming cycles to do. Co-audit UCP instead!

WHO was screaming first, about NOTHING?

WHO was the IDIOT that couldn't duplicate?

WHO made a gross error of fact, and DEMANDED that I conform to it, with NO evidence?

WHY DID *YOU* START a completely irrelevant discussion in the first place? I was not at all interested in your false opinion. But YOU WROTE ME and demanded that I conform to your delusional error. WHY DID you do something you NOW say is against your principles?

>>When I posted the EXACT definition, proving that I was completely right,
>>and you were completely wrong, you had NO RESPONSE. Instead, you IGNORED
>>MY ENTIRE POST, and took another person's comment on it and used it as an
>>excuse to [apparently, from context, you didn't answer my query] ACCUSE ME
>>OF ANOTHER DELUSIONAL CRIME.

>Terrible huh? I don't think that Hubbard should have broadened his
>original definition as used in DMSMH the way he did. It ended up
>as an A = A = A definition. I use it in the original first meaning,
>where it was precisely describing a case phenomenon in order to
>distinguish it from others.

Gee! *I* use the word in it's PRESENT MEANING!
I'm sorry that's not OK with you. I apologize for phatso.

So now we find out . . . when you THOUGHT you knew what the word meant, the *EXACT* DEFINITION WAS VERY IMPORTANT. And you felt SO strongly about it you had to make a BIG issue out of it on usenet. You WOULD NOT TOLERATE my "improper" use of a word. The fact that it was totally obvious EXACTLY what I was talking about was irrelevant, I HAD TO use the "proper" word with the "proper" definition. You were right and I was wrong, and my insolence to ask you for your source was unbelievably rude and unacceptable.

Now that we find out that I WAS using the EXACTLY right word with the EXACTLY right meaning, but the hysterical bullshit you dished out is STILL OK. You're still right, and I'm still wrong, AND LRH IS WRONG TOO! Now the EXACT DEFINITION of the word is no longer irrelevant, but what the definition of the word SHOULD BE, ACCORDING TO HEIDRUN.

Let's examine some possible client originations about case phenomenae that are turned on by a process being run in a session:

I have a pain in my zorch.
I'm really angry about the pain in my zorch.
I know your evil intentions turned on the pain in my zorch.
You are deliberately persecuting me by causing my pain in my zorch.
I'm going to kill you right now for evily attacking me with my pain in my zorch.

I know you think that it's terribly important whether the somatic shows up as a physical pain, an emotion, a computation, a motivator, an intention, etc.. The fact that it's ALL caused by the "reactive mind" is irrelevant, especially if the same thing which turned them all on will turn them all off. We MUST have different names for them all, and NEVER use a term that includes them all . . . because Heidrun says to.

The fact that LRH disagrees is irrelevant. The fact that everybody else in $cientology has been using the word "somatic" to mean EXACTLY what LRH and I mean for many decades is irrelevant to Heidrun, who in her pretence identity as FINAL TECHNICAL AUTHORITY, *DECLARES* US *ALL* IN ERROR, completely ignores her own original rants, and settles the issue once and for all with the OPPOSITE rule that she was invoking several days ago.

Of course, many people think there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the angels who sit on the right hand of god, and those who sit on the left hand of god. But what does Heidrun think . . .? THAT'S the really important thing for us all to bear constantly in mind.

The fact that everyone else long ago realized somatics are somatics, and it's not very important what flavor, is an ERROR according to Heidrun. Of course, it was probably also an error that "tech" advanced beyond 1950, because it makes her delusional fixed ideas wrong.

Of course, if NOTHING had happened since Elizabethan England, and NO ONE had a new thought since then, we would still speak perfect Shakespearean English. ERROR ALERT!

>[ Lots of screaming snipped... as I am reading all that, Paul's
> hand is lovingly exploring the body parts that are between
> 20 and 40% of my height. He eagerly nods to all the screamed
> accusations and finally says: ]

RELEVANT POINTS SNIPPED
NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR
SEX

>"You have a couple of really nice liabilities here..." (where
>his hand is) ... ... we are distracted for a moment.

RELEVANT POINTS SNIPPED
NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR
SEX

>>DRAMATIZING THIS HALLUCINATION AND FALSE/SUBSTITUTE BEINGNESS, she began
>>posting to usenet as "CLEAR BABY," [the name of her new valence]
>>enthusuastically CHAMPIONING the heroic missionary efforts of $cientology
>>on behalf of total freedom.
>>
>>Of course, that solution didn't wash at all on usenet, as her
>>HALLUCINATIONS and DELUSIONS about $cientology were RIPPED TO SHREDS by
>>those who KNOW.

>"Here is your breakfast", says Paul, offering a plastic folding box
>with 8 pounds of cherries. Wow! He has been plucking cherries all
>morning! We expect a hailstorm for tomorrow, maybe already this
>evening. Last year at this time, immediately before conserving
>our cherries, 2 feet of hail buried them all on the ground as we were
>away on a business trip. Coming back, we found cherry jam all over
>the garden. Now my dear lover gets up at 4:30 in the morning to
>save the cherries!

NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR
EATING [food]

>>So she dumped parts of her false identity by acknowledging the reality of
>>the criminality and contradiction of the ORGANIZATION of $cientology, and
>>salvaged what she could of her TECHNICAL HALLUCINATIONS by leaving the cult
>>and joining the "Free Zone". She dropped her "Clear Baby" valence, and
>>took on a new one, becoming "CONCERN," and has since then been championing
>>HER heroic missionary efforts on behalf of total freedom.

>"She dropped her delusionary rantings only to describe how 5 year old
>Patrick was the best submariner on the family bed!", comments Paul.
>"Poor deluded lady who hasn't handled her case! But that will come
>when she has done some more tech-finding."

NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR

>>She doesn't recognize that this LIABILITY [or lower] PRETENSE identity *IS*
>>HER CASE.

>Oh, I'm afraid I made a mistake. Yeah, HERE is where Paul said that
>with the two liabilities...

NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR
SEX

>[ It's not really possible to concentrate on answering this important
> post. Paul behind me in the second chair does such an irresistible
> one-man comedy show that I am screaming with laughter by now.
> Too bad that I am getting too old to remember it line by line,
> but his funny gestures alone are too much! ]

RELEVANT POINTS SNIPPED
NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR
GLEE

>>Heidrun has made her false identity into a public presence. A perfect
>>example of case!

>"Yeah!" says Paul, "the public have this false idea that Heidrun
>is the spittin' image of Sharon Stone!" Ohhhh.... that was so
>sweet of him to say. I feel more like Roseanne Barr... found
>another kilo this morning as I stepped onto the scale. Might be the
>exclusive diet of cherries though that I have been eating a week
>or two. "You must be shitting red!" says Paul, reverentially.

RELEVANT POINTS SNIPPED
NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR
EATING

>>This leads me to my MAIN POINT. UCP turns on these dramatizations, allows
>>you to SEE them, and BLOWS THEM OFF, eventually returning you to your
>>native identity at DEATH. Above zero, UCP handles the aberrated ideas,
>>computations, actions, etc. of the real "YOU."

>Paul and I begin to get bored by this stuff now. "Never mind", says Paul,
>"just remember what John Mace said - as anybody opens their mouth,
>they reveal their case to you, whether they want it or not.

NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR

BTW, your comments have been VERY REVEALING lately.

>And - "
>(the funny twinkle shows up again in his face which makes people love him
>in the first minute) " - and see, he's just above DEATH on the scale,
>which is not so bad actually, as in his own view, nobody on this planet
>is in any way up to that.

FALSE FACT. There are a few. Definitely Not You.

>He HAS his own view of truth, see. But then again,
>so does everybody in an insane asylum."
>And out he scuttles, his box with cherries under one arm and the
>clever book with the preserving technologies under the other.
>Aren't there some great men on this planet!

NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR

>"In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people
>very angry and was widely considered to be a bad move."
>
> - Douglas Adams -
>
>"You realize that you're gonna to destroy Christine's makeup. Her
>tears will be running all over the place from giggling."
>
> - Paul Smith -

"Please don't presume condescension to a
power-hat old timer from your rank newbie status."

-Konchok Penday-

RELEVANT POINTS SNIPPED
NO RESPONSE = HIDING
COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR

>Heidrun Beer
>
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at

For a better understanding of the extremely common tone levels / ethics conditions that Heidrun is compulsively dramatizing, please see the CHART at the following web site.

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

lr1467@aol.com (LR1467) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 07 Jul 1999 06:13:35 GMT, in message <19990707021335.19830.00003125@ng-cq1.aol.com>:

Dear LRon Junior:

>Heidrun -
>
>KP sed
>
>>eventually returning you to your
>native identity at DEATH

It would be nice if you didn't snip most of the quote,
so the context would allow the quote to make sense.

>Native "state" is DEATH?

I'm sorry, but an ability to duplicate simple words is necessary for intelligent conversation. I never said that, and it's not even the fragment you quote above.

>What he talkin about?

You have to learn to read first, or NONE if it makes sense.

>That's the only thing in the
>whole damn stoopid post that I would take up - if I was Sharon Stone, that is.
>Or was that cherry stone? Do your love give you cherries that have no stones?
>JEESH. Now you got ME doin it......

>Do upchucks have this effect on everybody?

When you throw up on yourself, everybody knows it.

>But what I REALLY want to know is, DID IT HAIL???
>
>
>LR

Konchok

in message <B0001074128@grizzly.ctinet.net> VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 17 Jun 1999 11:16:35 -0400, :

>At 14:41 16/06/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 16 Jun 1999
>>12:17:50 -0400, in message <B0001070926@grizzly.ctinet.net>:

>>>At 05:01 16/06/99 -0400, anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>>>....a lot of not much, which I deleted for brevity.

>>I LOVE how you always delete my entire post, so you don't have to confront
>>ANYTHING.

>Don't flatter yourself with delusion.
>I delete what I find inconsequential or boring.

If you find the entire post inconsequential and boring,
why bother to delete it and then "reply" to it?

>>>Let's see if I can peg you down.

>>Actually, I think the phrase would be either "pin you down" or "take you
>>down a peg." We'll let the lurkers make their own determinations on the
>>success of your endeavors.

>Whatever. You're the master of dub-in, so suit yourself.

>>>You took a well known simple Scientology process from the '50s,

>>And WHICH process might that be? I keep asking, but I NEVER get an answer,
>>[unless you count Lester's recent ASTOUNDINGLY INSANE assertion that R2-21
>>= UCP].

>Offhand I can think of two such processes. One is found in "three steps to
>better beingness", and the other is the valence splitter process, which can
>be applied to anything. LRH also mentions broader applications in the 1st
>Melbourne ACC tapes of 59.

So the "A well-known process" is actually THREE processes, SO obscure I never heard of them or don't remember them. I guess they must ALL BE THE SAME PROCESS. You know, if UCP = #1, and UPC = #2, and UCP = #3, then UCP = #1 = #2 = #3. Did Ron just keep putting out the same process over and over again with new names? Ooooops!

Perhaps you could AT LEAST mention the commands of these process, and quote what Mr. Source Person said about them. I think it might be a fascinating exercise to compare the similarities and differences between them, each other, and UCP. Don't you?

>>>modified it a little, put a label on it,

>>Again, WHICH process might that be?

>>>(releasing it on Christmas day of last year -
>>>how convenient)

>>Don't you think it was appropriate to make a gift on that day? I hope you
>>weren't expecting a lump of coal instead? That's the first day I had the
>>materials in postable form, so I posted.

>>>and then made a whole (presumably one man)

>>Your presumption is in grevious error. Please reread the recent UCP
>>CO-AUDIT FIELD REPORT that you complain you have read too many times . . .
>>but never understood.

>Alright, two-man - you and your brother (I assume it was him or someone you
>know well)

Your [totally erroneous] presumptuous assumptions declare your own case state.

>>>movement out of
>>>that calling it "God's Church", and yourself "God's prophet",

>>Your TOTAL inability to duplicate even simple words and phrases is very sad.

>>>and then armed
>>>with that as your whole basis of operation,

>>UCP is the basis.

>>>set out to prove everyone else wrong

>>I set out to get others USING UCP. I am STILL about that.

>>>about what they'd learned about the tech, undermine clearing tech as a
>>>whole,

>>How can you UNDERMINE an unworkable destructive pseudo-technology. I
>>merely POINT OUT the lies, errors, confusions, pretenses and TRUE stats
>>that you ignore and gloss over.

>You just made my point.

I did? Perhaps you could explain that.

>>>bash Hubbard who originally conceived of your tech,

>>If he concieved of it, why didn't he teach it and use it? Pretty stupid,
>>huh?

>Your tech is a modification of his process - just one of his many, many
>processes.

By that reasoning, Hubbard's process is just a modification of Freud's process, so you should REALLY be bitching at me for ripping off Freud. Hubbard DID have many many processes, NONE of which DO what UCP does. So his stats are zero for, say, 1,000.

I'm one for one.

UCP gets results the cult couldn't in fifty years of failures.

>>If pointing out that a "totally sane and clear spiritual leader" is
>>ACTUALLY a heavily boozing liar, drug addict, criminal, and raving insane
>>psychotic is "bashing" . . . I say "BASH AWAY!"

>I've read his materials, and I've listened to hundreds of his tapes. I've
>also read many of your posts. And of the two of you, guess who I think
>would more closely fit the above description.

Your GUESSES are really NOT RELEVANT to the DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF YOUR INSANE "SOURCE PERSON," whose materials and tapes I also spent YEARS studying.

>>>bash anybody who
>>>disagrees with you calling them idiots,

>>I call idiots idiots, usually when I indicate their idiocy.

>>Not everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot, but it helps.

>>>and prop yourself up as the new
>>>"king of the hill", the new "messiah" for the millenium.

>>You obviously haven't even bothered read my web site:
>>**YOU** ARE THE MESSIAH!

>>>Dennis Stephens with his "time breaking" and Rowland Barclay (I believe it
>>>was him) before him had both come up with similar techs using the comparison
>>>technique as the basic modus operandi.

>>Does SIMILAR mean IDENTICAL to you?

>Plagiarism doesn't necessitate identical copying.

Anyway, I am not familiar with their materials,
so I couldn't have plagarized them.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I have imitated them?

>>What is your point?

>>>They did this back in the 80s, and
>>>maybe conceived of it well before that.

>>And what is your point?

>>UCP was concieved BEFORE the 80's, as if that was somehow relevant to its
>>workability.

>>>And their tech was far more
>>>elaborate, meaning they did their homework and covered many bases.

>>You have it backwards. The more elaborate, the more narrow and useless.
>>E=MC^2 is a classic example of SIMPLICITY IS POWER, and shows completed
>>homework and covered bases. YOU WORSHIP COMPLEXITY AND MYSTERY.
>>WORKABILITY is the only test.

>There's a vast difference between simplicity and simplistic.

Yes, there is.

There is a also vast difference between insane unworkable comlexity and elegant simplicity.

And your point?

>>>But their tech never really took over the free zone.

>>Maybe it wasn't promoted right? Maybe it didn't work very well? I don't
>>know.

>>>It was incomplete.

>>That might explain it!

>>>Palmer's Avatar was billed as doing everything your tech claims to do.

But it doesn't work any better than Hubbard's as far as I can tell. Anyway, Hubbard's was BILLED to do EVERYTHING, so why are YOU still parked down there, far below death?

>>And Hubbard BILLED himself as a sane spiritual leader. What is your point?

>>>It was good too, but incomplete.

>>From what I have seen if it, it is NOT good. It's just another way to flop
>>around in below-death pretenses and valences.

>You make my point again. Is there no other tech than yours you find any
>value in?

Some, yes, [like the scales] but not too much, no.
If there was, I WOULD BE DOING THAT INSTEAD OF UCP!

>>>So your tech is neither original (well, maybe 1% is),

>>You keep asserting that, but you NEVER show where I stole it from.

>>>nor is it any end-all tech as you claim.

>>And this assertion is based on what? Your missing data, zero experience,
>>and hallucination?

>>>I think your whole operation is about boosting your ego at the expense of
>>>others, and little else.

>>Maybe you could explain how UCP operates at the expense of others? I don't
>>even charge for it. I give ALL the materials away for FREE at my web site.
>> Your thoughts are irrelevant.

>At the expense of others' viewpoints.

Maybe you could explain that a little better. Other people have their viewpoints. I have mine. I don't take theirs away . . . unless you count trashing their obvious public delusions. They are welcome to keep their hallucinations if they want, but I WILL continue to laugh at them.

>You prop yourself up while bashing
>anybody else -

Not true, as I support UCP and bash idiots . . . but even if it was, so what?

The only really relevant question is:
Does UCP really work?
Will it do what I say it does?

>like you just did with Avatar (not that I'm any great Avatar
>fan myself). What other tech than your own have you ever said anything good
>about?

THE SCALES!

WHICH I INCORPORATE INTO MY OWN WORK!

>>>You can say whatever you want about me, like you normally do, but it won't
>>>detract from the above facts one iota.

>>If I could find one iota of FACT in your rambling irrelevant rants, I would
>>be impressed.

>It's nonsensical generalities like that that discredit you - fortunately.

Now THERE is a surgically precise statement that discredits NO ONE [almost]!

>>>As I've said many times, I have nothing against alternate routes, or even
>>>against you personally,

>>Good! Me too!

>>>I just don't care for somebody bullying his way into
>>>center stage while attempting to kick everyone else off.

>>I don't understand your metaphor. I just present my viewpoints. So do
>>you. You are just as "center stage" as I am. Have I cut your comm in some
>>way? Or are you just motivating?

>The metaphor is basically about "My tech is the only one you'll ever need.

I NEVER said it's all you'll ever need.

I DO say it far surpasses the entire $cientology "bridge" in a few hours, because it's true.

>Why waste your time with anything else or anybody else's."

Hey! Most of us have wasted MANY THOUSANDS of hours on something PROVEN to be UNWORKABLE by FIFTY YEARS of products like you. Why not spend a FEW HOURS to test something that ACTUALLY *DOES* WORK, and gives FAR SUPERIOR RESULTS!

>>>One other thing. I'll bet you that you sincerely believe yourself to be the
>>>reincarnation of either Jesus Christ, Gautama Siddhartha, Moses or Mohammed.
>>>Am I right?

>>How dare you ask me questions about my case, you SQUIRREL!

>Did I hit too close to home?

OK, I admit it . . . I WAS one of phatso's BTs,
[in a former lifetime], and I got ALL my evil purps from him!

>>Anyway, by
>>"standard tech" Jesus never existed,

>That's not an answer. So is it Jesus? Do you consider yourself to be
>Christ's second coming?

NO THANK YOU!

>>and the Commode was Gautama
>>Siddhartha. That leaves Moses or Mohmammed, who I hope I was not. I'd
>>hate to burden myself with even MORE amends projects. Anyway, what is your
>>point? Does that relate somehow to the workability of UCP?

>It may have its workability, but it has its limitations, which you seem
>unwilling to admit to.

On the contrary, I'm sure UCP must have some limitations. On the other hand, no one has found them yet. Cultech has OBVIOUS limitations, that MOST people see very quickly.

For instance, it NEVER does what it claims to!

>Robert

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

in message <7v30hm$3hr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Slarty <slarty@my-deja.com> wrote in thread "RE:UCP", on Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:35:50 GMT, :

>Dear inventer of UCP;
>Why do you post Anonymously?
>I ask this question matter of factly.

Because I have no desire to be utterly destroyed.

Konchok Penday

in message <7v30hm$3hr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Slarty <slarty@my-deja.com> wrote in thread "RE:UCP", on Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:35:50 GMT, :

>Dear inventer of UCP;
>Why do you post Anonymously?
>I ask this question matter of factly.

Because I have no desire to be utterly destroyed.

WHY DO *YOU* POST ANONYMOUSLY?

Konchok Penday

in message <EiJAODi0DckAxMOlRhI6t8q1R7=y@4ax.com> "Robert \"bob\" Hummels" <hummelsr@bluewin.de> wrote in thread "Re: UCP", on 27 Oct 1999 14:41:05 -0400, :

Anon wrote:
>>>Why do you post Anonymously?
>>>I ask this question matter of factly.

Konchok:s
>>Because I have no desire to be utterly destroyed.

bob:
>WAIT HOLD THE PRESSES......
>Do you mean to tell me UCP can NOT prevent you from
>being utterly destroyed?

Please learn to duplicate.
It is already DOING that.

I compared where I might be posting my address
with where I might be posting pseudonymously.

[P.S. Thats' UCP, so don't tell anyone.]

In one future scene, I WAS destroyed.

In the other future scene, I MIGHT not be desrtroyed.

So you COULD say that UCP IS protecting me . . . so far!

>It does everything else....I think you even posted about
>how it did your dishes....or something.

I'm sorry, but it can't help you if you're too stupid and lazy to use it!

>It is the perfect cure for every case right?

NO. Sorry. You don't qualify.

However, if you say ENOUGH bad things about UCP,
it WILL raise your IQ and other abilities, and you WILL
wind up doing it and raving about it. ASK RONBERT!

>So what about your problem with facing the CofS?

UCP runs out cult track.
Eventually, it will run the cult itself out.

>No cure there or what?

Sure there is!:

UCP even runs out $cientology!

>ARC,
>b0b

Konchok Penday