TECHTALK #5:
PIZZA RUNDOWNS VS.
HAVE ANOTHER BITE

Suppose your case was like a giant pizza.

The "standard tech" method of attack would be something like this . . .

[Of course, there would be 500 different variations of it, and they would be
changed weekly. There would be a version for underweight people, and a
version for overweight people.    There would be special lists for people with
dentures, and those with heartburn. There would be frozen pizza versions,
restaurant pizza versions, and delivered pizza versions; fastfood versions
and gourmet versions, white flour versions and fresh ground whole grain
versions.]

Sample session agenda:
List all ingredients in pizza.
List and null to blowdown f/n item.
List and null who or what would represent/have/eat, etc. {item}, OR:
Run four flows of others giving others that {item}.
[GO EARLIER SIMILAR TO BLOW]
If no blow, date/locate pizza.

You would have a mushroom rundown, a cheese rundown, a tomato rundown, an
anchovy rundown, a sausage rundown, a garlic rundown, a crust rundown, a
pepperoni rundown, an extra cheese rundown, an olive rundown, and a pineapple
rundown . . . to start with.

As more ingredients were discovered, more rundowns would be added.

You would have to list all the ingredients and assess them on a list and order
the list according to size of read. Then you would take the biggest reading
item and run it first.

And then when the client bogged down, you would have to pull out all the
CORRECTION LISTS.
Was the pizza too cold.
Was the pizza too hot?
Was it stale before you ate it?
Has an ingredient been overlooked?
Was a pepperoni run as a mushroom?
Was a magic mushroom disguised as a portobella?
Was something overcooked?
Was something undercooked?
Were the toppings in the wrong proportions?
Were there incompatible toppings?
Was a cheddar cheese run as a mozarella?
Has an earlier similar pizza been restimulated?
Was some tomato sauce overlooked?
Did you spill goo on your new suit, and it wasn't overlooked?
Was the waitress too sexy?
Was the waitress not sexy enough?
Was there some cheese in the crust when you ran it?
Was there too much anchovy and not enough mushroom?
Did you not have enough money to pay the bill?
Was there enough money for the bill, but not the tip?
Were two cheeses melted together and run as one?
Did you have too many beers before you ate the pizza?
Too many beers with the pizza?
Too many beers after the pizza?
Not enough beers?
Was it scotch, not beers?
Not enough antacid?
Too much antacid?
Wrong brand of antacid?
Was a read missed in assessing a list?
Did the auditor look hungry when he assessed the list?
Too much salt?
Not enough salt?
Was there ketchup instead of tomato sauce?
Did someone put mustard on your pizza?
Were you still hungry but the pizza was all gone?
Did your date eat more than their fair share?
Were you too full but you ate anyway because you paid for it?

And there would be very puzzling technical questions: if you had hamburger on
the pizza, should that be run as a pizza or as a hamburger? If the client
went to the toilet during the meal, should that be considered part of the
pizza incident, or should that be handled in a special toilet rundown?

The auditor and the case supervisor would spend endless hours going over the
worksheets and session reports trying to determine WHAT WENT WRONG, AND WHAT
PROCESS to run on the client next.

They would spend lots of time reading technical bulletins looking for old
forgotten processes, or inventing new ones to handle the Nouvelle Quizine
California Pizza Kitchens SPECIAL SPICES. Different rundowns would be
developed for french, italian and german pizza, THICK CRUST AND THIN CRUST,
deep dish and extra ingredients. Chicago Style would be a Flag-Only rundown.
Pizza gas could only be run under very tight security aboard the [not quite]
"Free Wind". There would be a very special rundown for all-you-can-eat pizza
lunch buffets at an all-you-can-pay price. Square pizzas and round pizza's
would have some special extra questions.

And all of the questions MUST be asked IN THE RIGHT ORDER!

And the auditor would spend lots of time assessing long lists over and over
and looking carefully at the meter and writing lots of things down . . . and
cramming and retraining because he ran an anchovy as a sardine and the client
belched.

There is a technical name for all of this . . .






It is called . . .






. . . FARCE!


*******************************

On other hand, UCP [Universal Clearing Process] would say:

Have a bite of pizza.
Chew it up.
Swallow when ready.
How was it?

Have another bite . . .

*******************************

One is INFINITE ENDLESS UNKNOWABLE COMPLEXITY MANIPULATING MULTIPLYING
SYMBOLS.


[This is necessary because the auditor, case supervisor and organization are
all way down BELOW DEATH in MYSTERY OR WORSE, and that's how they THINK.
Furthermore, it makes them IMPORTANT and gives them STATUS and power, and
makes the client an OBJECT to be manipulated and controlled through symbols
and figure-figure. If clearing wasn't MUCH too complex for ORDINARY MORTALS
to comprehend . . . no one could sell if for such absurd amounts of money to
hypnotized suckers.]

The other is radical simplicity, directly addressing the client's awareness.

One puts endless attention on the process.

The other puts the clients attention on . . . what his attention is on.

What a concept!

WHY MISS OUT?
DO UCP & SEE!

O
    ---  )
\

Konchok Penday
<KP@net-prophet.net>
Research & Technical Writing
Recipient of the Alex Yakovlev
Technical Excellence Award :-)

*TEST* THE UNIVERSAL CLEARING PROCESS!
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
GET YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW! @ net-prophet.net
UCP USENET POSTS @ alt.clearing.technology
THE UCP WITNESS SCHOOL IS NOW OPEN!
GLOBAL SERVICE AT REASONABLE RATES . . .
DO A 24-HOUR KP APPRENTICESHIP BY PHONE!
RE-EVALUATION COUNSELLORS, LEARN UCP!