<?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>Inside Scientology Compilations</title>
		<description>Discuss Inside Scientology Compilations</description>
		<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 09:47:39 -0600</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="https://mail.scientology-cult.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/38.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Not all that much</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-4538</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Curious, I was not involved in the set up of RTC and it was always surprising how much things operated on a "need to know" basis there. If you were not directly involved, you might know next to nothing about something happening in the next building. Anyway, 1982 was a year up major u[censored]eaval in Scn. LRH had been off the lines for nearly two years and when he came back, the shit hit the fan because of goofs that the management people had made, that Gold had made, etc. I was thoroughly stuck in on compilations and thus had my attention facing internally, not externally, which was the basis for forming RTC. The corporate scene was a real mess and there were many legal threats externally. LRH's solution was a corporate reorganization of which RTC was only one part. If you go to www.savescientology.org you will see the full layout of LRH's solution and how David Miscavige screwed up the entire deal and ursurped power for himself and his lawyer friends. Sorry I cannot be more help in clarifying your questions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Joe Howard</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:20:34 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-4538</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Joe - what do you know @ RTC ?</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-4537</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey Joe, you sparked our interest here about the earlier days like 1981 or so. Since you are (was about to say an old timer) - an "earlier timer", what do you know about the original creation of RTC (Religious Technology Center) ??? This seems to be a time period of great change in the church, and RTC as we know it today played a big part back then, in early 80's. We've heard it said that Pat Broeker said it was really his idea, to form RTC. Then We've heard that LRH never even signed his name to any RTC docs originally. And that Pat Broeker and Dave M were "closely monitored beings" and were part of a huge Take Over that actually originated and planned from outside this country. What exactly do you know about this, if anything at all. Did LRH ever say anything about a new RTC, or approve of it? Did he even know ??? Please respond ...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>curious</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:58:40 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-4537</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Friend of Ron says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-1047</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Joe, This fills in a lot of holes for me, as do your other write ups. Thanks. What happened to Sue? I was on the RPF with her in 84 and always had her in high regard. Friend]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Friend of Ron</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:55:42 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-1047</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Boyd H says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-903</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks Dan, I hope you go into that in detail at some point. I think minimally what can be said is it's a high crime to omit it from the grade chart for the past 30 years or so, not even allowing it, in light of the HCOB making it a high crime for course sup's to omit it. There is no "revision" needed, the course is a list of words. I know you were on these lines but you probably would have put it in if Miscavige wasn't there with his hidden data line and it was safe to originate disagreements. So there was some politics and tiptoeing involved where you had to choose your battles I'm sure. I know what it was like, it was mirrored at the CLO level where I was. A separate point on the GAT, not addressed to you but everyone; wiseoldgoat makes the point that evals put in whats been wrongly taken out, or remove arbitraries put in. Unless you're LRH you don't come up with new tech. Yet the GAT introduced a new courseroom setup with drill binders and room dividers and some other stuff, all of which LRH didn't see fit to include. The justification for GAT, "A talk on a basic Qual", was talking about qual, not courserooms, although apparently any drills in a qual would have to be mirrored in the courseroom per a ref. in that article. But anyways, LRH never saw fit to include this new tech despite 14? years between his death and the qual lecture; and this eval neither removed extra's or added in what fell out, so it's an unusual eval to say the least. And that might be partly the reason for it's failure to make auditors. Also there's been no review of GAT given that it's proven to be not the correct Why. There must be a lie in the piloting done for GAT somewhere. It can't be that the pilot was thorough enough to incorporate all the factors to view a real litmus test because it has failed. Such a bold "new tech" eval (and it must be called that, a one line reference changing everything when it's well known that policy and tech must be taken as a whole isn't justified) needs a super thorough pilot.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Boyd H</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:41:42 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-903</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PRD/KTL/LOC, etc.</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-780</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Boyd, I haven't read the article yet. I'd have to see the 1991 HCOB that integrated the PRD back into the lineup. The advent of KTL and LOC definitely lumbered up the lineup. To me, KTL at least is an undercut to the PRD. LRH developed it out of his World Out of Comm Eval (WOOC) from 1979. It certainly doesn't supplant the PRD. The reason DM hasn't rereleased the PRD is because he doesn't know where the hell to put it on the lineup and neither do Ray Mithoff (Snr C/S Int) or Sue Koon (RTRC Dir). Whether LRH wanted KTL and LOC to be auditor training prereqs, I forget and would have to see the original advices. I know somebody I can ask who may remember and I'll make that known if I can find out. Both PRD and KTL are fabulous actions. I recall listening to the first Study Tape after having cleared all the words in it and the experience was like nothing else I'd ever done. It was like LRH inside my head speaking outwards instead of him speaking into my head[censored]ones. Incredible. As for auditor training, I think a lot of these study type pre-requisites could be dispensed with if people did sufficient numbers of hours of Book One and other non-metered auditing such as Self Analysis Lists or CCHs on pcs. But that's just me shooting from the lip here.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Joe Howard</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:09:22 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-780</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Boyd H says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-745</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dan, could you comment on the primary rundown in light of this article: [censored]://www.wiseoldgoat.com/pa pers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo3_pr d.html#prdgeneral If the article is correct, the current requirement to begin auditor training is 1. KTL and LOC 2. Primary Rundown 3. Auditor training lineup Also, why isn't Miscavige allowing the primary rundown? Current HCOB's require it and call it a high crime to cancel it. I find it hard to believe Ron wanted KTL and LOC to be auditor training prereq's. When the squirrel is gone, the answer might be to acknowledge that these were in pilot stage for over eight years and their release has failed to make auditors in volume so they should go back to pilot stage.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Boyd H</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:15:18 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-745</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-364</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks for writing this down. Very interesting and makes a lot of sense. I would definitely like to read more about this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:28:58 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-364</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Joe Howard says:</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-363</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Eyes, Thanks. I've just written one about the GAT evolution you might find interesting. You experienced the needless arbitraries that killed some people's desire to audit. Once students got through Metering, they flew through the rest. Arbitrary passing standards for TRs and those dating drills added tons of time and killed enthusiasm one student at a time, I'm afraid. Joe]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Joe Howard</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:12:45 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-363</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Have reality</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-345</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Joe, Yes I would like to hear more stories from you. I got into Scn after GAT. I trained and somehow got through Trs and Metering. Date/locate drills were an absolute nightmare. I hunted high and low for a coach who would read on anything and everything and used his/her indicators through obnosis and suspision I had it right and then go hell for leather to get it to read.Did I get the EP, yes but it had to be done on selective people who would read easily and it took MONTHS for just that drill. Since this time I trained and became a validated class IV auditor. I have delivered heaps of auditing and many shiny bright PCs and not once has that drill ever even been needed in the lower levels that I have audited. Most people I know that wanted to train as auditors gave up on either TRs or Metering and as far as Im concerned that says "Huge arbitrary on the line". I wrote it up and got slammed as out-ethics but my thoughts were "f#%* you" and I continued on and just stopped reporting. Am I "perfect" of course not, who is. Am I competant as an auditor, absolutely.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>eyesopened</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:08:29 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-345</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Well Put</title>
			<link>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-277</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks Joe, having done all the training up to Class XII I totally duplicate you.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>NotsAware</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:58:15 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid>https://mail.scientology-cult.com/inside-tech.html#comment-277</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
