Possibly Helpful Advice


Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult
Vista

Senior C/S WUS to “brief” about GAT-2 at Phoenix Idyllic Org

Today’s big event at Phoenix Idyllic is a briefing from the Senior C/S Western United States, Andres Rodriguez.

Apparently a delicious buffet dinner will be served beforehand. (Proof once again of the etched-in-stone Scientology Inc maxim: If you feed them they will come.)

The red-ness of the ad, along with a prior dinner, along with being called a spectacular, life-changing technical briefing indicates that the mystery sandwich has a filling of GAT-2.

I note that unlike the unattended Pasadena Org GAT-2 briefing, there’s no mention that a non-disclosure bond will be required before you can get the briefing.

Has GAT-2’s secrecy blanket been lifted? Or did they figure out that the non-disclosure bond is what kept people from attending the Pasadena GAT-2 briefing?

 

 

And isn’t obsessive secrecy of things that should be public a hallmark of a cult?

Like the Pasadena GAT-2 briefing (that had James Byrne added as the key speaker at the last minute) Scientology Inc has convinced someone that Scientology Inc thinks has altitude to do the GAT-2 briefing.

Andres Rodriguez lost all possible altitude with me when I ran into him at one of these public briefings a few years back and I asked him “What is the exact LRH reference in which Misunderstood is labeled a Left-Hand button?”

You see, in the GAT-1 drills, Misunderstood is categorized as a left-hand button. Left-hand buttonedness in the GAT-1 drills means that an auditor can take up the question or item if the button reads.

“On the question, have you ever eaten an apple, has anything been suppressed?” (read) The auditor is then expected to take up the question.

But Misunderstood is different.

“On the question, have you ever eaten an apple, has anything been misunderstood?” (read) Thousands of preclears have been plunged into despair because the auditor took up the question instead of clearing the misunderstood.

And it is clearly a violation of the auditor’s code to run a preclear on a question or process he doesn’t understand.

In the instructions for the L3RH it clearly says REMEMBER TO CLEAR EACH WORD ON THIS LIST. IF A QUESTION READS AND THE PC SAYS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT, CLEAR IT AND REASSESS (don’t explain it and take it, as it read on a misunderstood, not on a fact).

In the scenario when the Misunderstood “button” reads: “On the question, have you ever eaten an apple, has anything been misunderstood?” (read), the auditor should find out the misunderstood, fully clear it, and reassess. He should not just robotically take up the question as it read on a misunderstood, not a fact.

And on GAT-1, entire drills are done predicated on the fact that you’re supposed to take up a question if Misunderstood reads. The hour-long no-mistakes CLEANING A READ final session drill comes immediately to mind. 

Now, if LRH said Misunderstood was a left-hand button, then the auditor could be correct in immediately taking up the question.

So I wanted to know what is the LRH reference where LRH says Misunderstood is a left-hand button?

I explained to the Senior C/S WUS I was asking the question because the GAT-1 buttons drill said it was a left-hand button and that I’d never come across the LRH that said it was a left-hand button.

I told him I’d written it up per the directions in the front of the GAT-1 buttons drill pack and gotten no response, even when I’d TR-3’d it.

The Senior C/S West US responded robotically (get this) that “the reference is the drill”.

The response was robotic (and moronic) because that’s what the GAT materials instructions state, which are non-LRH. He could get away with giving that answer because by giving that answer he couldn’t possibly get creamed or demoted by the COB, Davey “Neutron Bomb” Miscavige.

I could get no better response from him.

This is a very clever instance of a non-answer.

I asked what the LRH reference was for something the church said had an LRH reference and got a non-answer.

He was trying to make me a GAT-bot.

This is the reason that the Senior C/S WUS (or anyone being called Flag-trained) has absolutely no altitude with me.

It’s also one of the fifty-ish reasons I’m absolutely sure the GAT, with all its promises that GAT training would make you a perfect auditor are bogus, bunkum, and hokum.

I’m including a scan of a page that’s found in the front of every GAT drill pack.

Note how clever this is.

It says right there in black and white that the compilation of the drills was based solely on LRH materials. So my question to the Senior C/S was totally in-bounds, especially since I wrote up the problem to LRH Technical Research and Compilations for review…twice…and gotten no response. It’s not that I didn’t get a satisfactory response. I didn’t get any response.

And note this Catch-22. If you have a disagreement with the drill and can’t find the LRH reference that backs up the drill, the instructions are to complete the drill…incorrectlyand write it up.

In my case, I had written up dozens of outnesses in the drills and gotten no responses back from uplines.

Yet, when I finished the last drill on the SHSBC Certainty Course, I was pressured, nay forced, to route through on the course.

I have never received any responses to any of the outnesses I wrote up on the SHSBC Certainty Course.

And it’s why I never did a second Class VI internship.

I was not going to be caught on video tape doing something I knew was out-tech.

So, if you want to find out about GAT-2, go to the briefing given by the guy who doesn’t know the difference between what’s in-tech and what’s out-tech.

And then when you come out of the briefing and tell us what marvelousness the GAT-2 contains. Or tell us about upset you are.

Yawn.

— written by Plain Old Thetan

P.S. If this briefing is not the most life-changing, spectacular Tech Briefing in history, can you get your money back? After all, LRH says in HCO PL 21 November 1968 I SENIOR POLICY We always deliver what we promise”. Can you get recompense for the two or three or four wasted hours you spent going to this briefing if it proves to you that GAT-2 is just more David Miscavige snake-oil?

 

Number of views:4141
9
  

4 Comments

slappy  on November 24th, 2012

Andres Rodriguez, right! After I heard he was running around the country lecturing to people that if they watched porn, they would be ineligible for the OT levels, I made sure to watch me some porn.

Jeff Siebrand  on November 24th, 2012

He came to San Diego and told us the same thing as well as to stay away from “entheta” web sites which was really an attempt to keep us sheep away from Marty’s site. And your site.

Dan 351  on November 25th, 2012

He’s saying if you’re watched porn you are ineligible for OT levels?

I’d love to hear the LRH reference for that!

Time to get out the Verbal Tech Checklist.

Phil Bruemmer  on November 26th, 2012

Hilarious (if not so deadly) catch-22!

I never got any response from RTRC either. Probably they were all blown, or in the Hole.

I knew Andres when I was on the SHSBC in ’93.

He was going to be Snr C/S LATAM or Mexico…, I think it was LATAM.

He was a know-it-all who knew nothing (except how to survive in a cult) and from the picture above and the article, he hasn’t changed.

Leave a Comment

Powered by Sweet Captcha
Verify your real existence,
Drag the juice to the glass
  • captcha
  • captcha
  • captcha
  • captcha

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.