HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Fri Sep 11 16:00:15 EDT 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
FAILURE TO HELP = NO AUDITING
Kevin Brady (gomorrhan at hotmail.com) wrote:
>Ouch. Well, I can understand how you'd be pissed if you feel that help has
>been refused from those you consider qualified to help. As even Hubbard
>understood, the only reason clearing practitioners run into real trouble is
>failure to deliver the results they promise.
Clearing practitioners never promise to deliver any results, they
only promise to deliver standard tech whether it produces results or
The real item is:
Failure to grant beingness to the seriousness of the problem, and
blaming the *PC* for failure to handle it together with the auditor.
"Pc will not unburden if he auditor has no regard for the possible
severity of the problem." - Hubbard APA
My C/S at the Org didn't want me back in his HGC due to 'my
performance as a pc'.
Harry Palmer said I was weird, and not to teach anyone The Proof
because it would destroy their game.
Well maybe that's true, the proof did destroy every game I had,
"Hey Harry you wanna audit me on the proof?"
With Harry, long after the Org, I wanted to pay for one intensive,
see how it went, they insisted on 4 intensives, $12,000 dollars. Middle
of first intensive I walked out, never to return.
I couldn't go back, just couldn't do it.
Have you ever walked away from $10,000 of auditing waiting for you?
PC's can easily handle the failure of auditing to produce results
as long as the auditor does not blame the pc and the pc does not blame
the auditor, but both just accept the fact that neither knows what they
They may eventually part ways, but they will part as friends and
continued collaborateurs in discovery.
It's ok to not know what you are doing, how else are we going to
learn? Its the false fact that we know it all, that this procedure
ALWAYS works, and if it doesn't then YOU must be an SP etc. These wrong
why's will produce an irrevokable ARC break between pc and auditor as
long as they continue.
As for Alan, he has said he wouldn't have me enturbulating his
noodle farm, but mostly he has refused to audit me because I won't sign
my rights to commmunicate for the rest of eternity over to him in a non
disclosure agreement. No big deal, Alan hasn't a clue anyhow, so no
>For my part, part of the reason I'm trying to integrate "psych" viewpoints
>into my current investigations, and my unwillingness to accept "bt/cluster"
>things as being actual solutions, is because those who espouse those routes
>HAVE failed to help, dodging the actual charge on the case in an effort to
>skip past it and attribute everything to Xenu and his many minions. Getting
>really significant about personae and ostensible "whole track" events just
>seems a dead-end, wrong-track way, to me... so I take sage words from that
>direction with a grain or ten of salt. It's humorous to me when people who
>are dramatizing ser-facs (refusing help) try to get those they aren't
>helping to accept their justifications about "confidential" tech type
>"reasons" for failure of lower tech solutions to work. It's a sell-job of
>people who just won't roll up their sleeves and discharge the case that's
>there, instead searching for illusionary case that, of course, discharges
>with the greatest of ease (after all, it was just mocked up).
You gotta go where you gotta go. But next time you get bogged down
because you have made too much case gain and your BT's haven't try this.
Forget about Xenu and OT III, that evals for everyone and pisses
Picture yourself in a huge auditorium with no lights and you are at
the podium and you have no idea if anyone is in any of the seats.
Then just ask out loud, ok, anyone want some auditing?
Then audit in the dark for a while whoever or whatever comes up.
It can produce amazing results when done at the right moment.
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Sep 11 16:00:14 EDT 2015
Send mail to archive.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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the HomerWSmith-L