Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

TR's. Did they change? Or did something else change?

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Ted Mayett

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 12:57:54 AM9/19/06
to
Let's get started already, time to get this finished.

I'm not sure on the years here, or the exact titles, sorry.
At the end of this is a question for ex-members.

I think it was around 1985 that a new course was introduced that was
called 'The Basic Communications Course'. It might have been as early
as 1982 when this was released, I'm not sure. But I am rather sure
this new course was released before hubbard had passed away.

What I think happened was that the course preceding this was simply
called 'The Communications Course'. And this course, the predecessor,
is the course I took myself. This was the course that people new to
scientology would take somewhere along the line before they really got
started with taking advanced courses. This course I took might well
have been called 'the basic communications course' and the ~new~
'basic communications course' simply replaced the ~old~ introductory
communications course that new members would take. And pretty much
this is all meaningless babble right now. It would be nice to have
exact titles and years, but unless somebody else has that information,
I'm sorry but I don't have it myself.

What this post is concerned with is the fact that the new course
differed from the preceding course. In the thrilling first climax to
this introduction to TR's concepts such as "TR0 induces an hypnotic
state of euphoria" will be shattered.

You wonder how can this can be? How can this possibly happen?

For ten years now you have read ex-members and non-members explain
eloquently what the tr's are, and what the tr's accomplish. A common
characteristic to what they all say is the claim that TR0 brings about
an hypnotic state that helps ensnare new members. This is what you
have been reading for ten years, this is what I have been reading for
ten years. But while I have been reading, I have also been waiting.
Waiting for ten long years now for the truth about tr's and mainly for
the truth about this basic communications course to come along.

Why hasn't the truth come along? Are the ex-members lying?
Personally I do not believe they are lying, but rather that they are
simply ignorant of the change made to the new introductory
communications course as compared to the old introductory
communications course. I hope to prove this point with the question
that comes at the end of this first post.

When you say, when you want to claim that tr's are harmful or nasty or
whatever then you need to explain where it is that a new member is
first introduced to tr's. You don't walk into an org, say hello, sign
a free six-month membership form and then walk into the courseroom and
start doing tr's. This is not how it works at all. A person does
tr's when a course action calls for tr's to be done. At this time we
are discounting advanced members who might wish to drill tr's in their
free time. We are concerned with the concept that tr's are introduced
to new members to help ensnare them. This concept is incorrect as
incorrect can be. As will be shown.

So far as I know a new member can take one course, and one course only
that involves tr's. And this course is the basic communications
course. A new member cannot do tr's because they see them being done
and they look like a cool thing to the new member. A new member signs
up for and does the communications course in order to do/drill tr's.
Granted in a courseroom a newbie might be grabbed for a twin to
somebody doing tr's. But this would be out tech, and we are not
concerned with out-tech either.

So, moving right along... Here comes this new tr course for newbies.
I read the course book. It was a single book and not what is called a
course-pack. And I read the accompanying materials.
And instantly I saw how this introductory communications course
differed from the preceding introductory communications course.

It was a source of amusement to me to hear staff members and
established public members comment on this new course. These people
were totally clueless about this new course, about how it differed
from the preceding course. With a few of them I bestowed
enlightenment, but for most of them I just let them dwell in the
ignorance they favored so greatly. After all, these were not people
that put any time into the courseroom, these were your standard
paper-pushers that fill an org. And this was a new course that had
come along, and they never even bothered to compare this to what they
had done themselves at an earlier time. They probably thought it was
just a new book cover for the same old materials. Who knows what they
think though.

It was my experience that only about 4 people between both orgs
realized how this new course differed from the preceding course.

And now <drum roll> here come the question for ex-members.

When this new course was released was it the tr's themselves that were
changed, or were the tr's identical to what they always were, but
something else had changed? To rephrase this somewhat. The new
differed from the old. Was the difference in the tr's themselves or
was the difference in something else?

--
Ted Mayett
http://www.solitarytrees.net

Magoo

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 1:24:49 AM9/19/06
to

"Ted Mayett" <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:3uqug2pcpg4ka2nqr...@4ax.com...

Here's my take:

I've never said the TR's were bad, and often I've said *I* feel that was one
of the valuable courses in Scientology. That's # 1, so perhaps I don't count
here, but this is my experience.

First there was The Communications Course---I did this in 1969.
The big difference in this course and a following one, was in the
acknowledgement.
In this earlier course, there were only 5 acks:
Good, Fine, Thank you, Alright, and Ok. Period.

After this, Hubbard came out with "Blinkless TR's" Where a person was
supposed to sit facing another person for 2 hours and never once blink. I
never did these, but I heard many horror stories about them.

A few years of this, and that was shelved.

Next came The Basic Communications Course, where Scientology realized these
TR's were too hard for many people (*They had a 2 hour confront for TR 0,
and many people didn't like that).
Ok, so this next one had a variation of that....one did TR 0 until you could
"Be there confortably", I believe. Someone else can correct me if I'm off
there. I read this course, but never did it, and continued to just "Do TR's"
as needed for auditing.

The main difference for me was in the '80's, out came
"The Professional Communication Course"...and this was HOT for me! I loved
this course. (Sorry, for those who hate TR's...that's unreal, but for me, I
had huge changes on this course). Basically, Hubbard realized the TR's were
too "Rote" or automatic and without feelings, especially the
acknowledgements, so one was taught to acknowledge with reality.
Exp: Before:
" Tory, your Father Died".
Me: Thank you for telling me that, how are you?
(True example)

With the Pro TR's, one would say, " I'm VERY sorry to hear that!" See? It
acknowledges the situation, but it's with feeling and reality. The same
change occurred with this course, which was done at Flag for me, on TR
4---handling originations.
Before: "I hate this auditing".
Auditor: Thank you for telling me that.

Pro TR's: I hate this auditing.
I understand it's new, let's see if you can find out...blah
blah blah. (or of course pull their withholds for nattering :)

Anyways, there ya go. Hope that helps. One is more for new people, the other
is for auditors.
Also, everyone I knew who ever began Scientology did the Communications
Course, so which years are you talking about where some people did this
course?

My best,
Tory/Magoo~~

goo...@draemr.com

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 4:25:32 AM9/19/06
to

Hi Tory and Ted,

I got in in 1975, October. My first course, for $25.00, was "The
Communication Course". It had some data from "Fundamentals of Thought"
and "Problems of Work". and I think "Dianetics 55".

You read a couple of chapters and did an essay, IIRC. The chapters
introduced you to the "Communication Cycle" so you knew what the TRs
were supposedly for. To train you into being able to use the
"Communication Cycle" as an auditor, (and presumably, in life).

It consisted of TRs 0T-TR0, TR-0, and TRs 1-4. as the drills. Each part
was to train on a particular part of the communication cycle, and then
the last one put it all together.

My experience was to do the OT-TRO, (confronting with eyes closed)
until a "win". and you weren't nodding off, or something.

In my case, it was a feeling of being very alert, hearing and sensing
everything around me without having to do anything about it, with my
eyes closed. I understand this now to be a kind of trance state or
hypnotic state. Being alert and focused is one possible hypnotic state,
something I didn't know until I got out of the cult in 2003.

Then, on to TR-0, which was confronting with eyes open. No talking, no
twitching etc. It wasn't "Blinkless" in that if *your body blinked*
involuntarily, then it was ok, but if you were having trouble and
blinking your eyes because they felt wierd or something, then you
weren't doing the drill right.

On TR-0 I went through a lot of feeling sleepy, nodding my head and
waking up with a jerk, eye and face pains and a whole bunch of visual
distortions and hallucinations while doing this one. Eventually things
settled down and I felt good about doing it and was able to do the
drill. But I had the feeling that I really had to disconnect from any
*control* over my body and while feeling connected to it, had to get to
a state that I didn't need to do anything about what I was aware of.

This drilled in ability of "not reacting" (unless you want to), I think
does set up a succeptibility to being coerced. Your natural warnings
are suppressed as being "reactive". I think this is also a hypnotic or
trance state.

After having a "win" then I did work up to a full 2 hour confront with
no break.

The thing is, "something happens" with this stuff. It is a new thing
for most people, I assume for anyone who had not meditated or done any
kind of spiritual practice. It was so new to me that I felt "blown out"
I had a feeling of being very in touch with my body and senses, without
having automatic "reaction" to things. I thought this was unique.

I didn't know enough to know that this is a common mental state that
many obtain through other disciplines or hypnosis or other spiritual
practices. Instead I was sold the idea it was hubbard's unique find,
his invention and that this feeling that I had was unique to
scientology and very importantly, *the rest of scientology is all full
of similarly powerful things".

Which is not true. I think for many, the biggest win they ever had was
on the TRs.

So, this "thing that happens" is used to elevate the worth of
scientology to the person, and by contrast devalue everything else that
the person is doing in their life.

It creates an artificial dissonance that causes people to choose
scientology. Otherwise you have to explain to yourself why your money,
time and effort were spent in something useless. At that point, to not
choose scientology is to make yourself WRONG for having done it. You
have to explain to yourself how you could have this amazing experience
and yet not want to do more.

And all the regging and ethics officers and staff and other public will
find every objection you might have and devalue it until you begin to
doubt yourself. You ultimately make the decision to resolve the
dissonance by devaluing for yourself everything you were doing, any
doubts or anything people say against scientology, so as to reduce the
conflict with staff, regges, and importantly, your own feeling that
"something happened".

In my case, I was targeted for heavy coercion ("regging", what the
"registrar" who convinces you to give money and sign up for more does)
RIGHT after I had my "WIN" on TR-0.

And THAT is the coercive persuasion. It gets stacked against you. And
you have observed yourself doing it, feeling good. So you will likely
not go to a decision that you made a mistake, instead you will
rationalize that because you did it, it must be good.

So those were the "hard TRs", which were made quite more fleshed out in
the Pro TRs, as Tory stated.

A lot of '70s hippies who got in, got in because the TRs blew their
minds and seemed to help them discard using drugs. For some, it was THE
thing that saved their lives.

Someone in the '80s decided that public couldn't do "hard TRs", because
there were so many drug cases, etc, etc, etc.

So they came up with "Success Through Communication" course. It was not
the TRs, but it was based on the TRs and the communication cycle. It
was oriented to make one able to use the communication cycle skills in
"life". There were various drills for all kinds of different
situations you might encounter. It didn't have the 2 hour confront. It
wasn't a TRs course. It was not an auditor training course. It wasn't
part of "the bridge".

A lot of scientologists thought it was a degrade of the TRs. I never
did the course, lots of staff didn't do it, lots of public didn't do
it. But it replaced the "Communication Course" that I did as a first
course in scientology.

Now there are a wide variety of "life improvement courses" that new
people do that will cause the "something happened" effect in whatever
area that new person was interested in.

I think there is a benefit to having an understanding and skill in
communication. The TRs are one way of getting some kind of
understanding and skill in communication. They can make great changes
in a person, that a person finds valuable. That does not mean however,
that the TRs are not also an artifically enforced rigid view of
communication, a trance inducing, hypnotic, and mental stressing set of
procedures that create succeptibility to the control and coercion of
the cult.

That it can feel helpful, even genuinely be helpful and also be the
means by which the cult lays its hooks deep into your soul is one of
the hardest things to understand and get past.

michael leonard tilse

Ted Mayett

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 5:52:46 AM9/19/06
to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:24:49 -0700, "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net>
wrote:


>Here's my take:

woo hoo. Awesome. You got it! And there is even extra valuable
info, nice!

>
>I've never said the TR's were bad, and often I've said *I* feel that was one
>of the valuable courses in Scientology. That's # 1, so perhaps I don't count
>here, but this is my experience.
>

ummmm, they will call you OSA if you keep talking like this. :-))

>First there was The Communications Course---I did this in 1969.
>The big difference in this course and a following one, was in the
>acknowledgement.
>In this earlier course, there were only 5 acks:
>Good, Fine, Thank you, Alright, and Ok. Period.
>
>After this, Hubbard came out with "Blinkless TR's" Where a person was
>supposed to sit facing another person for 2 hours and never once blink. I
>never did these, but I heard many horror stories about them.
>
>A few years of this, and that was shelved.
>
>Next came The Basic Communications Course, where Scientology realized these
>TR's were too hard for many people (*They had a 2 hour confront for TR 0,
>and many people didn't like that).
>Ok, so this next one had a variation of that....one did TR 0 until you could
>"Be there confortably", I believe. Someone else can correct me if I'm off
>there. I read this course, but never did it, and continued to just "Do TR's"
>as needed for auditing.
>

This was the difference. Although it extended even beyond TR0. With
this new basic communications course the student did *all* drills
until the student themselves were happy that they had 'duplicated the
materials'. Where previously TR's had to be done until the student
received a 'pass' from the courseroom supervisor. You couldn't be
overly flippant of course, you had to put ~some~ effort into the tr's.
But any sincere effort was good enough for a 'pass' when the ~student~
themselves had determined they had performed well enough.

I don't recall for sure if this was written in the book that came with
the course. I'm thinking it was maybe material or instructions if you
will that only the course supervisor had. BUT, it might actually be
in the book that the student receives. This instruction that the
student does the tr drill until they are pleased with their result.

And this is why staff and established publics would comment on these
TR's. The courseroom was an arena of slop where newbies and tr's were
concerned.

As a result of this new course by hubbard tr's could not have an
hypnotic effect on new members. They never did a drill long enough to
get hypnotized. The basic communication course is not a tool to
ensnare new members. It is a 'gradient approach' to scientology.
There is no pressure applied to the new member on this course.

Anyone wants to say that tr's do this or that, learn to differentiate
between tr's. And understand that newbies are not "trapped" because
tr's give them an hypnotic euphoria.

Pro TR's are a different story. But you don't do those until you have
done the Student Hat. The student hat used to cost over $1200, no
telling what they charge today. By the time you get to pro tr's a
person is already committed. They are moving up the bridge to total
freedom, and it was never tr's that got them to this point.


>The main difference for me was in the '80's, out came
>"The Professional Communication Course"...and this was HOT for me! I loved
>this course. (Sorry, for those who hate TR's...that's unreal, but for me, I
>had huge changes on this course). Basically, Hubbard realized the TR's were
>too "Rote" or automatic and without feelings, especially the
>acknowledgements, so one was taught to acknowledge with reality.
>Exp: Before:
>" Tory, your Father Died".
>Me: Thank you for telling me that, how are you?
>(True example)
>
>With the Pro TR's, one would say, " I'm VERY sorry to hear that!" See? It
>acknowledges the situation, but it's with feeling and reality. The same
>change occurred with this course, which was done at Flag for me, on TR
>4---handling originations.
>Before: "I hate this auditing".
>Auditor: Thank you for telling me that.
>
>Pro TR's: I hate this auditing.
> I understand it's new, let's see if you can find out...blah
>blah blah. (or of course pull their withholds for nattering :)
>
>Anyways, there ya go. Hope that helps. One is more for new people, the other
>is for auditors.
>Also, everyone I knew who ever began Scientology did the Communications
>Course, so which years are you talking about where some people did this
>course?
>

Agreed here. Everybody I saw did the communication course early. You
could start with something else, but you couldn't get too involved
until you had done the basic communication course.

Zinj

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 7:14:24 AM9/19/06
to
And, here's my take on it.

TRs are just exercises. Like thousands of others inside and
outside of Scientology. The content can be seen as irrelevant,
because it's the exercise itself that's the 'message'.

The message is 'you can control yourself'. When it boils down
to it; that's all it's about. It's discipline and 'training'
and practicing controlling yourself; from your physical actions
and comfort to your emotional state.

Naturally, there's a gulf of perception between 'trained'
Scientologists, who almost universally remember (or still
practice) the TRs with fondness and 'never-been-scientologists'
who almost universally view them with suspicion.

The same 'kind' of 'training routines' can be found almost
anywhere, whether, to a far more extensive level in a military
boot camp or happy feel-good exercises in some newage 'course'.

I can remember similar 'exercises' going back to the mid-60s and
'sensitivity training' etc. And, to far more malicious levels
in groups like EST and Synanon.

Scientology's TRs fall somewhere in between and, unsurprisingly,
most Scientologists see them as 'harmless' and remember
achieving 'wins' while doing them.

Unsurprisingly, because *they became Scientologists*. Those who
did *not* have 'wins' would very unlikely go on to become
Scientologists.

However, in all things Scientology there is a 'subtext' to the
'training'. Yes, one learns to 'control himself', which can be
a valuable and rewarding discipline, but he *also* learns to let
*others* control him. To 'follow direction' To 'take
direction', especially to 'take direction unquestioningly'.

'Trained' Scientologists tend to go positively bonkers when they
hear the TRs described by non-scientologists as 'hypnotic'.

Naturally; they have a 'post-hypnotic command' that 'Scientology
is not hypnosis; scientology is not hypnosis....' :)

Well, maybe not in so many words, but, sometimes it sounds like
that. Certainly there is a gigantic 'misunderstood word' on
what hypnosis is; and, there's little doubt that it's
*deliberately* so.

To really boil down 'hypnosis' to its simplest form; it's
'becomming comfortable with taking orders'.

Trust and 'authority' are essential elements for someone to be
successfully 'hypnotized', and, most of us have ingrained
resistence to 'taking direction'. Without the trust of the
'subject' in the 'authority' of the 'hypnotist' there will be no
hypnosis.

This extends to such variants as 'autohypnosis', where the
subject must trust *himself* and have respect for his *own*
authority to give himself commands, and be comfortable to follow
them, as in the use of 'affirmations', yet *another* hypnotic
exercise.

If there is no trust, and no recognition of authority, there is
no hypnosis.

If there is no trust, and no recognition of authority, there is
no Scientology.

The 'TRs' are the training in that trust and the practice in
accepting the directions to perform even *ridiculous* tasks and
exercises.

Oh, I know, the 'TRs are good!' contingent are now over in the
corner mumbling 'Scientology is not hypnotism' to the wall...
but, at least they're not clucking or making lawn-mower
noises...

Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think

realpch

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 3:32:46 PM9/19/06
to
Zinj wrote:
>
> And, here's my take on it.
>
> TRs are just exercises. Like thousands of others inside and
> outside of Scientology. The content can be seen as irrelevant,
> because it's the exercise itself that's the 'message'.
>
> The message is 'you can control yourself'. When it boils down
> to it; that's all it's about. It's discipline and 'training'
> and practicing controlling yourself; from your physical actions
> and comfort to your emotional state.

<snip>

Isn't part of the message also that you can control others?

> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think


--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com

Zinj

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 3:45:51 PM9/19/06
to
In article <451045DF...@aol.com>, rea...@aol.com says...

> Zinj wrote:
> >
> > And, here's my take on it.
> >
> > TRs are just exercises. Like thousands of others inside and
> > outside of Scientology. The content can be seen as irrelevant,
> > because it's the exercise itself that's the 'message'.
> >
> > The message is 'you can control yourself'. When it boils down
> > to it; that's all it's about. It's discipline and 'training'
> > and practicing controlling yourself; from your physical actions
> > and comfort to your emotional state.
>
> <snip>
>
> Isn't part of the message also that you can control others?

That's later Peach :)

Remember; gradients and baby steps...

First you control yourself; then you let other people control
you (for your own good) *then* and only then do you get to
control others; when your 'control' would only be a pseudopod of
the people controlling you...

It's a '4th dynamic' function.

Ted Mayett

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 5:04:06 PM9/19/06
to
On 19 Sep 2006 01:25:32 -0700, goo...@draemr.com wrote:

>So they came up with "Success Through Communication" course.

Aha, I remember this title now!

> It was not
>the TRs, but it was based on the TRs and the communication cycle.

What I don't remember though is ever seeing tr's listed differently
anywhere. As I recall tr's were always listed in a 'copy and paste'
form, but the 'stress' on the drills differed.

> It
>was oriented to make one able to use the communication cycle skills in
>"life". There were various drills for all kinds of different
>situations you might encounter. It didn't have the 2 hour confront. It
>wasn't a TRs course. It was not an auditor training course. It wasn't
>part of "the bridge".
>

So what was the first communications course required for the bridge?

Magoo

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 10:04:51 PM9/19/06
to

"Ted Mayett" <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:7nk0h2hdfda00uu5u...@4ax.com...

"Success through Communication" ...that was the beginning course for all who
began Scientology. I think it still is, although it *may* have a varied
name.

Best :)

Tory/Magoo~~

Magoo

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 10:09:39 PM9/19/06
to

"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f7a12d3f...@news.day.sbcglobal.net...

> In article <451045DF...@aol.com>, rea...@aol.com says...
>> Zinj wrote:
>> >
>> > And, here's my take on it.
>> >
>> > TRs are just exercises. Like thousands of others inside and
>> > outside of Scientology. The content can be seen as irrelevant,
>> > because it's the exercise itself that's the 'message'.
>> >
>> > The message is 'you can control yourself'. When it boils down
>> > to it; that's all it's about. It's discipline and 'training'
>> > and practicing controlling yourself; from your physical actions
>> > and comfort to your emotional state.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Isn't part of the message also that you can control others?
>
> That's later Peach :)

Actually, he's right: It IS later: It's the very next course;
HQS: Hubbard Qualified Scientologist. That's where the
CCH's come in: Control, Communication, Havingness.

It's the second course, which teaches one to control others,
in various ways, or is supposed to. How much of it works? Well,
how many people can honestly say they *did* get that ashtray to "Stand UP"?
:) :) :)

Best,
Tory/Magoo~~

Larry T.

unread,
Sep 19, 2006, 10:24:08 PM9/19/06
to
Hi Tory:

"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:xt1Qg.1381$kw4...@newsfe04.lga...

Good thing you know your Bridge.

It is the course right after. It is still a very 'beginner" course but it is
the one right after and it doesn't cost so much and it is not a slim pack so
Scientologists think they are getting a whole lot. In actuality, many HQS
course students wind up in the hands of intern auditors and some of them
even go Clear. So even though the course is not really worth that much, the
church never cancels it. But Clears and OT's is not their goal in my
opinion.

--
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan
Lawrence

The Diary of a Scientologist


(SNIP)


Magoo

unread,
Sep 20, 2006, 2:11:40 AM9/20/06
to

"Larry T." <xxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:4510a64e$1...@news2.lightlink.com...

The only incorrect thing you've said here is that "Some of them even go
Clear". There are ~no~ Clears, dough head. :) Did you forget that? No one
goes "Clear" on this course, the Clearing Course, or any other course. It's
just peer pressure, that obviously doesn't last or Hubbard wouldn't have
come up with "OT" would he?
Please don't try to pitch in some promo on ARS...it shall never last. You
should know that by now, at the very least. (and I know, you didn't mean it
as a promo of their courses, but it did sound a bit like one).

So even though the course is not really worth that much, the
> church never cancels it. But Clears and OT's is not their goal in my
> opinion.

Nor did any go Clear or OT on this course. At best, one learned how to "8-C"
People around (Move their bodies, control them).
However, since we all had agreed this worked, there wasn't much *real*
resistance, was there. Did we *really* control them?
Well, here we are, so I guess not! :)

Keep up the great work, Scientology! You're really makin'
Clears and OT's now, if Bob Adams is the head of PR?
Oh my GAWD!

Today is a great day :)

Tory/Magoo~~Dancing in the Full Moonlight~~
www.xenu.net
www.xenutv.com
www.torymagoo.org
www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm.
Google Scientology--there are *many* more great Web sites!

realpch

unread,
Sep 20, 2006, 2:21:22 AM9/20/06
to

Yeah, thanks Magooski, I really couldn't remember. I read all that stuff
so long ago. Though of course, Zinj's analogy seems to be quite correct.

Peach

Muldoon

unread,
Sep 20, 2006, 2:54:34 AM9/20/06
to

I can't argue "in defense" of any part of "TRs" anymore - not for a
while. Otherwise, I'm going to be putting on my Daffy Duck costume and
running around going, "Woo wooo wooooo!"

But here's some stuff on the "neutral medium" (the first five items on
the screen). And this "neutral medium" includes, at times, and in some
ways, the more benign manifestations of "TRs":

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/search?q=neutral+medium&

Larry T.

unread,
Sep 20, 2006, 11:58:37 AM9/20/06
to
OK.

"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:yY4Qg.1564$2N...@newsfe02.lga...

Tory, at the Org in New York there were people that did NOT go Clear from
doing the HQS course but attested to Clear while ON the course before
finishing it, from the intern and other auditing gotten on the side while on
the course.

That was the reason for saying that. A person "just on an upper indoc TR's
type course" like HQS can BE OT IV.

It can and DOES happen.

Magoo

unread,
Sep 21, 2006, 8:58:43 AM9/21/06
to

"Larry T." <xxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:4511...@news2.lightlink.com...

People attesting (Saying "I just realized I'm Clear") yes, DOES happen. Are
they Clear, per the original definition Hubbard wrote for what a Clear is?
Please give me one name of someone....I'd love to meet that person. (Oh, and
don't give me a name, if they won't talk to me: That's not a Clear).

Tory/Magoo~~

Eldon

unread,
Sep 21, 2006, 10:07:06 AM9/21/06
to

There was a period when it was fashionable to be a "natural clear" who
had sort of gravitated to Scientology as a second generation
Scientologists (having died in the 1950s or some such crap). Then there
was Jamie Samms, who got into channeling after having pissed off the
powers that were in the late 1970s for claiming to be a "natural OT."
She later put out a bunch of Native American "Animal Cards" in a box
that was sold in New Age bookstores as a sort of alternative Tarot
divination thingie.

Go figure. I don't know whatever happened to Jamie. I think she moved
to Santa Fe or Sedona to better grok the energy vortex after
Scientology sabotaged her car in LA. So many stories....

Whatever happened to Two Dollar Bill's?

Larry T.

unread,
Sep 21, 2006, 12:06:38 PM9/21/06
to
"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:90wQg.4$v1...@newsfe02.lga...

Tory:

Scientologists often make up reasons why they cannot talk to people when in
actual fact they can.

A Scientologist should be considered untrustworthy and unreliable.

Real Scientologists never get anywhere in Scientology and never have and
never will.

Ed

unread,
Sep 21, 2006, 12:40:11 PM9/21/06
to

Eldon wrote:

[snip]

> There was a period when it was fashionable to be a "natural clear" who
> had sort of gravitated to Scientology as a second generation
> Scientologists (having died in the 1950s or some such crap). Then there
> was Jamie Samms, who got into channeling after having pissed off the
> powers that were in the late 1970s for claiming to be a "natural OT."
> She later put out a bunch of Native American "Animal Cards" in a box
> that was sold in New Age bookstores as a sort of alternative Tarot
> divination thingie.
>
> Go figure. I don't know whatever happened to Jamie. I think she moved
> to Santa Fe or Sedona to better grok the energy vortex after
> Scientology sabotaged her car in LA. So many stories....

I talked with Jamie Sams a few times in 1986. She told me
that she had been on the celebrity route and treated like royalty (I
guess she owned a restaurant that was "in" in LA) and had gone all the
way up to NOTs. On Audited NOTs in a session she saw a picture
(clairvoyantly, she said) of LRH and Aleister Crowley together. She
told the auditor and was very upset about that, and was sent to Ethics
about it. Seeing Hubbard's connection with Crowley turned her against
Scientology immediately and she was outta there. In the middle and
late '80s she was channeling and moved to Santa Fe. No idea what she
is doing now. She has sold many millions of her Native American
medicine cards and similar items.

Ed

Skipper

unread,
Sep 21, 2006, 3:26:28 PM9/21/06
to

Try http://www.jamiesams.com and this -
http://www.emergingworlds.com/ch_stories_detail.cfm?Content=46

She's a rich girl from Waco, Texas whose grandfather was the president
of the Southern Baptist Convention and the family money was made from
selling church pews. When she was a girl, she was in a private plane
and saw her mother absent-mindedly walk right into a whirling prop.

They broke the mold with Jamie.

0 new messages