Subject: Re: GPM Question
From: Thomlove <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 12:45:54 -0700
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology

Hello Les;

Rogers wrote:

> It's just a BIT unclear, but it seems (to me) that initially Ron thought in
> terms of ONE GOAL per pc.

Yes. Initially it was *one* goal. I remember the BC tape where Ron first brought
up the idea of further goals. The BC students were coauditing goals, and if they
got a goal on their pc, there were declared a Class III auditor, I believe. On
this one tape, LRH was going over a certain phenomena, and he asked if anyone
suspected what it was. It was of course that there was an earlier goal. He
offered anyone a Class IV cert if they had noted in their worksheets, C/Sed by
MarySue, that they suspected this phenomenon meant there had to be an earlier
goal. A few had thought of it, but none had written it down on the W/Ss, so....

Then 'clear' became by the number of goals.

I know that LRH often gets lambasted by the notveryclear individuals for the
fact that the Book One Clear doesn't hold up. Well, it is an ideal state that
Ron was looking at, and striving to achieve. The Book One Clear does hold up,
but it is an ideal state, no charge anywhere.

Other states of 'clear' were relative. They were all stable, but the concept
grew as LRH began to realize there was a gradient going on. Before that, he was
looking for the 'one shot clear' process. The Grade Chart is the result of his
realization that there was no such thing.

Since you are reading the tech vols, could you watch for something for me? There
is a paragraph in the tech vols, where LRH says something to the effect, that
'the meter reads only on misownership'. It may be in vol three, I'm not sure. I
can't find it anywhere and it is a piece of data I want to reexamine in light of
more recent 'case' things I've noticed.

> The good news:  This was the period that demanded (and produced) excellent
> metering

Yes. I remember. The CO of ASHO, Jack Dirmans wife, whose name I forget, Irene I
think, was there with LRh at  the time. She told us a story once...

She was auditing her pc on goals, and she called on 'null'. This whisper came
over her shoulder, 'That read'. So, she told the pc, 'It was an equivocal read,
so I'll recheck it'. She did, didn't notice and reaction, and called it clean'.
The whisper repeated itself, "That read'. So, she told the pc she'd recheck it,
since it was equivocal. She did, called it clean, and got the whisper again. So,
she told the pc it read.

That is when LRH came out with a tape on 'equivocal reads'.

> Bottom line (I think), GPM running was too hard and too brutal on too many
> and it demanded a high level of auditor skill and too many hours.

No doubt. But I think we can handle it now. Back then, L&N was unknown. I used
to clean up some of those old lists!

Thom