Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Wed Feb 25 00:06:02 EST 2015
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MISSING TERMINALS RUNDOWN
ACT - 87
26 March 1995
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
First there is an Overt, usually against the Golden Ally or SP on
Then there is a withhold and regret, even if the Golden Ally or SP
Then the withhold is MISSED BY THE GOLDEN ALLY OR SP.
Then the missed is not-ised by the thetan, and along with it the
terminal who missed it, how they missed it, what was done, and who was
The terminals who are done to, and the terminals who miss the dones
form a CHAIN of terminals. These are the missing terminals on the case.
This chain of missing terminals forms a black hole into which all
memories fall, never to return.
This is the sequence:
3.) Missed <---> by Terminal, Golden Ally, Nemesis One
4.) Not-is of MISSED
Not-is of miss results in not is of HOW it was missed, WHO missed
it, and what was missed.
HOW it was missed and WHO missed it are MUCH more important than
WHAT was missed. You can run NOT-IS on HOW and WHO to spectacular gain
without ever finding WHAT.
"Has a MISSED been not-ised?"
"Has a Terminal been Not-ised?"
"Has an SP been Not-ised?"
"Has a Golden Ally been Not-ised?"
"Has a Nemesis One been Not-ised?"
"Has a withhold been missed by an SP?"
"Has a withhold been missed by a Golden Ally?"
"Has a withhold been missed by a Nemesis One?"
"HOW was the withhold missed?"
"Has a withhold on a Golden Ally been not-ised?"
"Has a withhold on an SP been not-ised?"
"Has a withhold on a Nemesis One been not-ised?"
"Has an Overt on a Golden Ally been not-ised?"
"Has an Overt on an SP been not-ised?"
"has an Overt on Nemesis One been not-ised?"
All the above questions can and should be run with 'a chain of':
"Has a chain of misseds been not-ised?"
"Has a chain of terminals been not-ised?"
"Has a chain of withholds been not-ised?"
"Has a chain of overts been not-ised?"
The missing persons on a case will be found to be those who MISSED
the withholds of the pc. It is the missed part of the withhold that
most violates the pc's ability to know and not know, and to cause others
to know and to not know, and it is the make-break point between sanity
and insanity, between responsibility for who knows what and when, and
The person most 'to blame' for the miss of course is the person who
missed it. When the pc finally not-ises the miss, he also not-ises the
terminal who missed it. Once the miss is completely unknown (it never
happened), the terminal will also be completely unknown (he/she/it never
ALL MISSING TERMINALS OF SIGNIFICANCE ON A CASE, WILL BE FOUND TO
HAVE MISSED A WITHHOLD OF MAGNITUDE ON THE PC AND THE REASON THOSE
TERMINALS ARE MISSING IS SOLELY BECAUSE THE MISSED IS MISSING TOO.
The pc not-ised the MISS and thus not-ised the terminals who missed
The not-is is on the miss not the terminal, the terminal merely
gets not-ised with the miss.
The overt which was missed, will have its echoes in this life, but
mainly it will be found to be a whole track overt of magnitude BEFORE
To audit this at the effort level, you want the efforts to not-is
on the following items in this order:
1.) The MISS
2.) HOW it was missed.
3.) WHO missed it.
4.) WHAT was missed.
PTSness is solely that the SP missed a withhold on the pc, usually
an earlier overt against the SP.
Having an overt against an SP missed by the SP is as bad as it
The pc is PTS because he did not strike against the SP hard enough,
(the SP lived to miss it after all) and the pc can not resolve the MISS.
Resolve the miss and the pc will no longer be bothered by the SP,
nor in fact his whole Nemesis One chain, no matter how big and bad they
He will in fact be able to make more of them forever for free,
which is the E/P for the Missing Terminals Rundown.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 25 00:06:02 EST 2015
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L