<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Behind the Golden Age of Tech</title>
		<description>Discuss Behind the Golden Age of Tech</description>
		<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 09:48:30 -0600</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="https://mail.scientology-cult.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/162.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Answer</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-5201</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bill, No one has done a full comparison of the new corporate materials vs. the old. You can now complete your auditor training at several places, one of them being in Georgia. See www.iScientology.org (note the "i" before Scientology).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Thoughtful</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:30:08 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-5201</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Then how DO I find what is valid?</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-5200</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I enjoy your articles by the way and Marty sent me your way so: After leaving FCDC in 77 because of a disconnection order not complied with I have not had contact nor could I start my auditor internship. My question is how does one differentiate the changes rightly done by the RTRC, GAT the premier issue and real Ron releases to those of the gang with dirty hands. I did not go to the book burning and between all the auditing had and academy training I gained a wonderful appreciation for the [censored]iloso[censored]y and at some point would like to retrain, retread or un retire to be an auditor. Has the differences in the tech been archived for comparison to the incorporated insanity level? ARC Bill Dupree]]></description>
			<dc:creator>FCDCClassof74</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:11:45 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-5200</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Thanks Joe...</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-4542</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So THAT'S why my auditor had me go back to my original size cans ! Per the new data that came out in the 90's it said something about the new way to determine proper can size. The problem is that after the hand shake out, and then laying your hands on the table to determine the natural curl of the palms, it is assumed that the pc will just "hold" the cans that same exact way the the curl was when on the table (with hands just limp and lifeless). But in actual practice, especially with a pc who is used to the regular size cans, one gets an odd situation where it doesn't work out too well. Too big of cans, even if they do fit a natural palm curl, do not hold well in the regular session of HOLDING them for several minutes or hours. You have to experience it yourself to understand this. It can be VERY awkward and annoying. Also the idea stated in that 90's ref said something about it's an eval if you didn't do it this new way. Well my aud did it the "old" way for years and never came close to inval or eval. Amazing, huh ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>curious</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:14:53 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-4542</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>That was not DM</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-4539</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Curious, in the False TA bulletins from 1972, LRH wrote about different sized cans for the pc's hands. DM, of course, took this way over the top with cans that were supposedly much superior to earlier cans but which in fact CREATED horrific false TA problems. These new cans were, as I recall, stainless steel plated copper cans that had a closed top, which trapped warm air from the pc's hands and caused his or her hands to sweat thereby driving the TA down. These were also hugely expensive compared to earlier cans or the old asparagus cans we used in the 70s. It is to my everlasting discredit that I released those new cans aboard the Freewinds during the 1997 Maiden Voyage as a management mouthpiece. It was my last speech at an Int event (thank God!).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Joe Howard</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:27:18 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-4539</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Joe - Curious @ the can size ref by DM</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-4536</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Joe, I,m curious about that can size ref that came out in the 90's by DM. I couldn't figure out how he decided that we should have numerous EM cans ranging from pip squeek to monster dinosour size. And all that to "fit" the pc's hands right after he shook them and laid them on the table. And how he concluded that the aud was "evaluating" for the pc if not done his way. My aud never invaled me...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>curious</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:40:40 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-4536</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RE: Behind the Golden Age of Tech</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-3748</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What an article. If you were talking at an event instead of this stupid DM, I will be so happy to go back listen to an event again. Please, take the time to write some more.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Firebreathing Frog</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:30:57 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-3748</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>about to give up</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-2511</link>
			<description><![CDATA[sooo- all the books have been re-printed and everyone "has" to read them before further training. this "nazi-style" scientology added insult to the injury of the so called "golden Age" - of memorization and forcing people to re-do everything they already had their cognitions, realizations and raised i.q.s on!!! i was horrified and said so and was (threatened) cajoled, pushed into going along with it - i didnt want to be thrown out!!! its all so lousy now - people go away to train for years! at what was supposed to take months!!! i am done with this but will probly end up divorced because my husband is a sissy who wont stand up with me toKEEP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING!!!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>disillusioned</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 21:09:04 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-2511</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Out-Tech</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-2078</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Could you address the subject of "out-tech." I've had a lot of training and considerable auditing experience so I was able to recognize out-tech the last two times I tried to get auditing at FSO. This was not sec checks. It consisted of bad and wrong and O/R program and auditing and very strange assessment TRs. What's going on??? It had a reverse and harmful affect on me casewise, very confusing. Can you shed any light on this. I'd previously experienced only quality tech delivery at FSO. The time period here was once in the 1990s and once in 2000s. I've "lost the faith" so to speak due to these horrendous experiences. One wants to feel better, not "crazy" after auditing. Of course, I blamed myself, "dog pc," etc. I protested at the time, to no avail. Have you heard about any similar situations? I'm grasping for a "reason" why the tech delivery used to be truly outstanding and then it wasn't. At this point, I'm pretty gun-shy. I believe in LRH, I believe in the tech. What went wrong??? Any ideas???]]></description>
			<dc:creator>R.RIley</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:34:36 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-2078</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>More Q\'s</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-2041</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Joe, you have provided some excellent data and helped, with me at least, to indicate some BPC on GAT. However, GAT for the Student Hat and PTS/SP Course, for example. There are patter drills for the Tone Scale, Technical Degrades, MU [censored]enomena, etc. Doesn't the very existence of those patter drills violate what LRH said about practical application as opposed to memorizing a bunch of data? I can see the application in auditing commands, but not so much in memorizing all the points of Technical degrades or every point on the Tone Scale. What value is knowing the numerical assignations for each tone? Another point, mentioned by others on other blogs, is the fact that Student Hat, Pro TRs, Pro Upper Indoc TRs and Pro Metering seem to serve only to lengthen the runway for auditor training. I wish had the reference(s) quoted, but they summed up to what RJ was saying about HCO PL DRILLS ALLOWED. Why would one have to do Pro Metering, including the Meter Drills 5 times, then have to repeat these drills on the Academy Levels, since they are incorporated on those checksheets? Same goes for TRs. It would seem the existence of these courses would be the same reason as the Drills Course you mentioned LRH wanting to put together - when auditor is flubbing or can't get a particular aspect of auditing down. I guess you could liken it to automatically giving someone FPRD with the assumption that he has evil purposes, despite the fact that he hasn't dramatized them (assuming he has them). In any event, your post was an excellent read and I thank you for the data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>InTheRafters</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:01:52 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-2041</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>GAT</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-496</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As an auditor 20 years before GAT and who never had a problem auditing all levels of auditing up to NOTS, I can see how GAT made everyone into the same robot. The Drills were helpful, but Joe's right it was all molded into one, which has it's Liabilities. The Instant Read and Def of FN was the final knock out blow. It messed me up and many others. I gave my last session in 1998, and after 30,000 WDAH's, I am done- unless this is changed. BTW, DM's Why in his GAT Eval "Blind leading the Blind" is if anything a Situation not a WHY per the Data Series.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Barney Rubble</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:50:18 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-496</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>GAT</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-455</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks, Chuck. Yeah, the quality of training has varied over the years reflected in fads, who was doing the training and you-name-it. The whole GAT thing was an attempt to at least lay in a foundation that would be predictable and standard org to org. A sort of McTech if you will. But as I point out, it would only serve as an Academy Class 0-IV strata of training, since LRH's intention was for them to be good technicians or mechanics. Another good LRH idea perverted. Dan]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Joe Howard</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:20:09 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-455</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck Beatty says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-471</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks Dan for the article. I first did the GAT drills on the Int RPF, in 1997, and I found them helpful. I only had a problem when in some instances the drill was out tech. Otherwise the drills to me, even did succeed on the point of the "blind leading the blind" since I knew there were a huge degree of incompetent drilling going on in Academies. At Flag, in my years on the Flag TTC, 1976-1977, when I did a little bit of training, I found out how bad the field drilling really was. I observed, that when FSO hotshot auditors vintage 1976 had retreads or retrains, or even cramming, they would WAIT until another hotshot FSO HGC auditor of their choice would DRILL them on the procedure they needed to be crammed or retreaded on. In fact that was a major part of the Internship gig, finding the good auditors to drill you on the things you needed to know how to do correctly! It was finding someone who DID know the correct procedure and the fine points, to drill you so you got the fine points, Flag standards. Anyways, I saw the GAT drills in this larger whole tech history context, where you have expert topnotch, or had (since FSO had had a continuing tech brain drain all its own), topnotch auditors who helped their immediate brethren also aspiring soon to be topnotch FSO HGC auditors, and the FSO topnotchers came from the AO's where they did their years as Class 6s or Class 8s first at the AOs before moving up to the FSO HGC level of "perfection." I don't think DM had a clue about this. Ray Mitoff was too backed off and couldn't just lay the whole scene on the line to DM, and neither was there anyone else there to tell DM like it was/is. DM is unapproachable, uncommunicatable to, and has usurped decision making on tech matters. Ray's too weak of a valance, and so when all is said and done, I'm glad you did the GAT drills, Dan! Thank you. It will at least bypass and give the lower Academy auditors the basics, since otherwise they just never had the chance, not unless those Academy/levels students had local good experienced HGC auditors or experienced field auditors to otherwise do their Academy drills on them. Thanks for this GAT history writeup. We'll see what happens before we die and hopefully all of your writings will be put into a book, since you're the man! You and a few other RTRC people need to write up ALL of the compilations history stuff also. DM's reign is guaranteed to LOSE a lot of history that DM just can't comprehend is important. I'm not even a Scientologist, anymore, but I appreciate you getting the story straight, for the history books. Thanks again.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck Beatty</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:05:27 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-471</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RJ says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-329</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You're correct, Anon. I've never seen the HCOPL Drills Allowed canceled. In fact I asked for a PL that specifically canceled 'Drills Allowed' and was thrown into ethics from qual. Dig this irony. 'Drills Allowed' was issued the same day of the HCOPL 'Hidden Data Line' Ah the symmetry :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>RJ</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:13:29 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-329</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>LO says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-296</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you for your well researched article. It's spot on. I think there is one factor that has also to be considered. As far I can remember there was once a Policy that only people with a high IQ do qualify to become an auditor on staff. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me I cane across such a datum in 1974?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>LO</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:15:03 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-296</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Useful!</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-328</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Joe! excellent article! It cleared tons of MUAs from Church PR to forum posts malice. I appreciate the tech comments from RJ, I'll read those to understand him better. Thanks you!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Otto</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:56:14 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-328</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Yes, the human element can be unfortunate</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-323</link>
			<description><![CDATA[RJ, No doubt there were errors in the drills. As I said, scads of reports came in and correction pages were sent out. As a Class VI many of these drills were probably not applicable to you. That's the point, a Class VI has a [censored]iloso[censored]ical grasp of the entire subject. An Academy student has only the merest grasp. LRH's point was to make a technician and drills would certainly help in that regard. A more fundamental mistake, as I've stated, was the blanket evaluation that all earlier training was invalid. And clearly, that has never been the case. Joe]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Joe Howard</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:49:38 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-323</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RJ says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-305</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well first of all thank you Joe. But I'm more in the we don' need no stinkin' drills league. We gots the TRs 1-4, 6-9 TR's 100-104 and we have the HCOBs which all give the basic sequences for any auditing action or procedure. My main problem with the GAT drills aside from the fact that I was a VI already when I did the Tech *un*certainty course was the *fact* that these drills altered Standard Tech, for instance according to Standard Tech Data you never run a process in rudiments yet some chuckle head at RTRC decided to include running J's as part of "Standard" MWH procedure or developed new and interesting procedures for doing an LIC other than itsa earlier itsa, etc. As far as I'm concerned many of the drills were just blatantly out tech and were actually mistraining auditors on certain actions and procedures which is a complete violation of point 4 of KSW! The above aside from the fact that HCOPL Drills Allowed was never canceled. Remember HCOPLs Seniority of Orders and Policy Source of? So what if Ron suggested various drills be piloted, obviously he wasn't too impressed with the effort or he wouldn't have kept that policy in force! And canceled the whole sorry lot of them when he personally redid the Levels checksheets in '78 as part of the RED End of Endless Training! Since when does a request or suggestion even by the Ol'man take precedence over an existing PL? I'll just say Joe that you might have gathered I have maybe a lil'itsy bitsy BPC on the subject of GAT and it was one of the reasons, in fact the major reason I walked away from Davy's lil' Squirrel Group in disgust! Please let's not have this contagion of aberration now infect the Independent Field! Anyway I hate to lock horns on this point because I respect your technical knowledge but I don't see why these drills are needed as Ron says in the HCOPL: (begin fair use) The only allowed Practical drills on any Scientology Course including PE are: 1. Modified Comm Course for PE. 2. Original Comm Course TRs 0-4. 3. Original Upper Indoc TRs. 4. E-Meter Drills contained in Book of E-Meter Drills. 5. Dissemination Drills when I write and release them. NO other practical drills of any kind will be permitted. Other Practical Drills are abolished. Reasons: They consume time uselessly, suppress actual processes and mess up data and cases. I did not develop or authorize these drills and have now seen that they teach alter-is of easy processes. They are not needed. They make poor auditors. I have just reviewed this matter thoroughly and have traced several training failures to these Wild cat Drills. Further, I traced several failed cases on course to them. Somewhere along the line somebody went mad inventing "drills" and "TRs". If this is permitted to continue, we will no longer turn out good auditors. The standard drills as listed above have proven sufficient for years... (end of fair use)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>RJ</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:54:45 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-305</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>GAT</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-309</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I had an auditor who trained via GAT. When I came up with something not on the drills the auditor could not handle it with ARC. He disconnected from me.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Kat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:39:30 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-309</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Guest says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-317</link>
			<description><![CDATA[RJ that's a good point. I don't have a bunch of training, but I did GAT M1 co-audit and student hat, and on student hat you have these patter drills which are off policy then.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:59:09 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-317</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RJ says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-313</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree with you Axiom. Also, Joe makes a very good point on implementation. If Miscavige hadn't of implemented GAT in the manner he did, there probably would a hell of a lot less BPC. Also if it wasn't for the wrong Why which was actually a computation or ser fac, i.e., "the blind leading the blind"(Yeah you can circle that puppy in red and run it on the brackets for sure along with about 90% of what comes out of "COB's" (which stands for Clown On Board) mouth and the other 10% which would probably R/S.) and time constraints RTRC might have been able to develop some drills that didn't turn students into robots and which turned the trained auditors into an insurgency! This is what I think the old man was working towards when he gave "A Talk on a Basic Qual." For instance, two drills that actually did pass muster back then were the original Dating and Locating Drill and what is now called Int Series 11 which were originally issued as BTBs. So it's not that it can't be done! But it's sorta like the 10000/20 odds Ron talks about in KSW that any group could devise workable drills. The fact is not only were there the drills Joe mentioned but all kinds of BTBs issued under the rubric of "Auditor Expertise Drills" for all levels including Dianetics which got put in the circular file G when Ron reissued the new Levels checksheets and with the exceptions I mentioned wasn't sorry to see 'em go! Personally I think if you can't hand a Class II the HCOB on Modern Repetitive Prepchecking, have him drill it on a doll per the HCOB Coachless Drilling then get a checkout by the sup and run it somewhat correctly on a PC then this "Class II" shouldn't be in the Academy. He should be on the PCRD! Because auditing is simple! And I think what these drills did was make auditing too complicated! Really, folks, auditing ain't all that complicated!!! I'm sure you know this Axiom and I'm pretty sure you know this too, Joe.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>RJ</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:11:41 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-313</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Drills or no drills</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-312</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you,Joe, for the informative article! I totally agree that one size does not fit all trained auditors! Also I think that if auditing could produce results good enough for people to get cleared that is really good enough! The main reason that things haven´t gone fast enough or really gone the totally other road is due to suppression that started already in the beginning of the the eighties, and Miscavige isn´t the only one suppressive either since he´s got back-up from above so to speak. RJ - I am totally with you on what you say about these drills and also about the technical alterations with for instance checking for Justifications in rudiments!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Axiom</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:11:41 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-312</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nailed it.</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-311</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Joe, I think you nailed it -- particularly by recognizing that the main problem was in the "blanket" implementation, and not necessarily the idea of adding more drills at the "technician" level. Thank you very much for this detailed description of how it all occurred.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Margaret</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:11:00 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-311</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Axiom says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-310</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you,Joe, for a well written article that explains a lot about how things are being done at Int Level under DM! RJ I agree with what you´re saying and also with what Joe is saying in that we had a workable tech in Scientology and that tech when well applied brings about miracles and freedom!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Axiom</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:10:35 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-310</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Boyd Hutchins says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-301</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well written and persuasive. Cleared some things up for me. It's like you were there at the start of it or something ;-) It's a mass mailer.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Boyd Hutchins</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:38:46 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/behind-the-golden-age-of-tech.html#comment-301</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
