post 40: trying to figure out what just happened (after black dn sessions at flag)

From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 40: trying to figure out what just happened (after black dn sessions at flag)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:50:00 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Note: please bear in mind that I was just back from flag, and was still a bit in disbelief over the "auditing" I had just recieved.

These areas mentioned in this report as "out-ethics" were forcibly asserted by therese as "my" perception and "my" out-ethics, when I actually did not have any attention on such as as had already been handled. During these "auditing" sessions just prior to leaving flag, I found that therese would not EVER accept what I answered her with, UNLESS I literally made up things to embellish or make more her idea of what really happened.

So, in this report, after checking with the various terminals I supposedly had such out-ethics with, turns out it was more in therese's mind than any of the real people involved.

Points 1 and 3 were especially distorted by therese.

Pretty sick puppy therese is, I came to fully realise later.


Ethics Section Flag
Virginia McClaughry January 6, 1999
Solo Nots Auditor

Knowledge Report
Virginia MCClaughry

I am writing this KR to make sure that the following data is available in my ethics file.

(first see KR re: six month security check line for solo nots pre-ot’s, also in my ethics file)

For the record, I am refusing to complete the six-month HCO security eligibility check started in September 1998. Per C/S series 73RB, and Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone, it was out-tech to have started the above sec check in the first place.

The situations that my Eligibility was suspended for: (that I was told)

1. My perception of out-exchange with my father in various forms..

2. My feeling bad that my husband is not able to pay for his Bridge due to the large family expenses....

3. My perception of that I am total cause over that (deleted), has an out-arc situation with the father of their child, as well as (deleted) family.

4. taking nyquil one night 2 1/2 years ago (prior to SNCC), when I was sick, and essentially when I had tried repeatedly to address in solo, it was not reading as a problem on correction lists (the illness). I knew there was case involved, albeit apparently unreachable, but I took the nyquil anyway.

5. That I am refusing to do an hco sec check (the six month security check), and am continuing to refuse to do it, even though I signed saying I would do six month security checks.

Please note that points 1-4 have come up either in session, in various forms, or in notes to my C/S, over the last 9 years of auditing on Solo Nots.

These situations came up again for some reason in recent auditing, as withholds, which was odd.

In the past I have been auditing well and making case gain, and I have been continually progressing in these areas, especially points 1 and 2.

Point 4 was written up to the C/S, with data on what has happening in the solo auditing, which by the time I received a new C/S, I was no longer sick.

Point 3 I found out in December 1998, (when I returned home), my perception of the situation was not accurate per (deleted).....

(deleted) does not hold me responsible for her situation, quite the reverse........

Point 5, my refusal is not going to change, as it is KSW.

Since as per above, I have been making case gain on the remaining points, ethics is considered to be in, as tech is in if case gain is occurring.

The handlings that the Maa had mocked up for me on the remaining points 1 and 2, were essentially what I was doing already. Point 3, I am not going to apply treason, as requested by the maa, because I had disclosed it priorly, and had applied a personal danger condition, it is a done deal.....................

I suspect that points 1-4 are not why my Eligibility was suspended, but that it is point 5. I suspect this because it was suspended after I sent a comm to the D/Snr/Cs reminding that terminal that I still was not going to complete the six month security check. Again, I suspect this, but I do not have proof.

The maa has stated that she thinks that points 1-4, are why I am doing point 5. Ie: that if I handled these other situations, I would no longer have a problem with doing the six month security check. This is not true, a: because these situations are not “new” situations, I was already making progress and case gain handling them prior to this whole cycle regarding the 2 HCOB’s, and b: it is a KSW point, and is not going to change, period.

Virginia McClaughry
Solo Nots Auditor