post 44: to richard REISS himself

From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 44: to richard REISS himself
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:56:34 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

This was written in approx oct/nov 1998




Senior C/S Fso
---------------
Virginia McClaughry
Solo Nots Auditor

Orders Query of

A) Order: Complete the 6 month Eligibility Check, do refresher, get back on solo, then return in 6 months to have another Eiligibility Check Order is given by Senior C/S FSO.

B) Regarding doing Eligibility checks every 6 months.

There is no LRH HCOPL or HCOB stating that my Eligibility is only good for 6 months, and that it has to be rechecked. The HCOPL Eligibility for OT levels does not state this either. This HCOPL was interpreted to me Alfonso, MAA,(a year ago), then recently by Karen, D of P AO2, and Barbara Nelson, Solo Nots D of P, as the reference on why a six-month check is done. It was pointed out to me by all three terminals that after an absence a new Eligibility check must be done.As I recall it was also pointed out by Karen and Barbara that “further OT levels” means more OT levels.(as in more of the same OT Level). The following is the paragraph from the first page that was being referenced to me, as the basis of the 6 month check.

“Last para first page states: “Those returning to an AO or FSO for further OT levels after an absence also receive an OT Eligibility Check and once this is passed a new eligibility chit is issued (signed and dated as before by the C/S, minister and MAA).

I have restudied this and applied the How to Defeat Verbal Tech checklist to it again as well. The interpretation given to me doesn’t align with the HCOPL, and the definition of “further” being used by the above terminals is different than what I found. The meaning of the word further in “further OT levels” that was pointed out to me by the above terminals is actually the adverb definition, which is incorrect.

What I found in word clearing this is that “further” in this sentence is an adjective, because it is modifying “OT Levels” which is a noun. In that sense, per Websters Dictionary, it means additional. In the Collins COBUILD english dictionary there is only one definition for “further” as an adjective. It states “ a further thing,number of things, or amount of something is an additional thing, number of things, or amount.” Same Dictionary, under “additional”, it states “additional things are extra things apart from the ones already present”.

So, in the last para first page of above mentioned HCOPL, as per the dictionary, and collins co-build, “further OT levels” means OT levels different than the one you are on.

Reasons that following this would result in loss or destruction are:

1. I would be violating this HCOPL on how Eligibilities are handled. This means I would be guilty of out-KSW and following an order not based on LRH Policy on this. I would also be following a reinterpretation of the HCOPL that is not correct, which per Orders Query of, “anyone following the reinterpretation is just as guilty as the misinterpreter...”

2. I would also be in violation of HCOB Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone, and HCOB C/S Series 73RB to receive sec-checking when I am not moving slowly or stalled, and am making excellent case gain.

3. I am not in Danger on my hat of the Solo nots auditor, either in the area of tech, or ethics.So, to bypass me and ignore what I say or do and check me anyway, is Danger, and is not my condition as the auditor.

Regarding “Finish the sec check” From an incomplete program technical point of view, I don’t really mind having a completed cycle of action. If completing the sec check can be done with NO loss or destruction occurring case-wise, and if it is done extremely A-B, then that is ok with me.

Regarding “do the refresher” I recieved a cram instead, where ALL my errors were gone over, and W/s checked, and the remaining actual areas of confusion and error, were corrected, including necessary drilling. I am corrected, drilled, and ready to audit.

C) A recommendation resolving the problem the order sought to solve: I recommend the following be done:

1. Return to flag, proceed directly with finishing the sec check. (No repairs needed or wanted). If the sec check causes loss or destruction case-wise or hangs up, re-evaluate at that time.

2. No Lower conditions asked for by ethics due to the KR from Barbara,(which I have requested to be withdrawn as it is false). Ok from Ethics given on Eligibility to complete the cycle of the sec check.

3. Attest sec check.

4. Proceed directly to Home Solo Auditing. If on board auditing is absolutely necessary, I request that it be kept to a minimum like 4 sessions or so. (I don’t have a lot of time due to familial obligations upcoming). My refresher is not necessary as I am already corrected, drilled and ready to audit. However, I would like my card activated so I can go read the materials, which I always do prior to leaving for home.

4. Acknowledge that I am not in Danger as the Solo Nots Auditor, and as per HCOPL Eligibility for OT levels, let me have my Elig and apply the HCOPL 100% standardly.