All of these straightwire processes run best with an E-Meter, using the question “When?” About the only reason we came off time was because auditors were using time to harass. It is not that it isn’t best to run it with time — it is best to run it with time. The muzzled fashion of running here is “Recall a time … when ....”
The guy says he did. “When?”
All right, the next response on the preclear’s part is, “I don’t know.” Then the auditor goes into action.
Now, when you hound them and mix them up and twist them up and mess them up with time questions, all that’s happening is that the auditor is dramatizing his own confusion about time, and he probably wouldn’t accept the preclear’s answer if it was three o’clock, September 2nd, 1959.
Muzzled Auditing is very severely this: The auditor utters the auditing command, the preclear answers it, and the auditor says, “A11 right.” The preclear originates, the auditor nods. Let’s make this a very severe definition of what we call muzzled auditing. Now, when you let the auditor go a little bit and give him an E-Meter and “When?” my experience and observation here in the 21st ACC is, he just goes for broke. It’s rather as if you cut two strands of a three-strand rope and he quickly busts the other strand. In other words, it’s muzzled or nothing. And where you have somebody who is doing any chop-up or is stacking up ARC breaks in any way, you have as your best answer “muzzled,” and muzzled is muzzled. And they can’t say “When?” either, because evidently if you give them “When?” they can go for broke and they can use “When?” and the answers thereof to chop the preclear up.
We did try to install a muzzled “When?” For my money, it hasn’t been successful. We’ve had at least one of our people exceed this at once. Just letting him open his mouth starts the machine. “It’s all right for you to say ‘When?’” you can say to this auditor — ”It’s all right for you to say ‘When?’ “ Right away, he says, “Well, I’ve got to do something else.” And so forth. We have even found that muzzled auditing wouldn’t go on this one: “I’ll repeat the auditing command.” You can’t even let them do that. You can’t let them say this, because it has been used to invalidate the preclear. We have an auditor (he’s not an auditor, he’s a case) who, every time the preclear answers the question, says, “I’ll repeat the auditing command.” The preclear tries to answer the question again, and the auditor just uses this as a non-acceptance. So this can’t go as part of muzzled auditing. That so far has been my observation.
This may be a very harsh look, but I feel from what I have observed that I am justified.
As I have already mentioned, we’ve got another condition here — reasonability. People have been writing script on the preclear’s engrams to some degree. That is a great evil. And those people we have turned loose and those people who are running engrams and are saying this sort of thing are doing pretty well, and some of them are writing a bit of script. And the main thing they are not doing is picking up the overts. There are a couple of them stalled around here on overts.
There is a rule about this: When they cannot easily find or run the overts, take them right straight on down to Dynamic Straightwire. These people are not owning up to their own responsibilities and that means — perhaps because the case has changed over to an area of irresponsibility — that you have a situation here in which the individual has dropped out responsibility factors to such a degree that he cannot be trusted. When a person won’t own up to his overts, you have an irresponsibility of great magnitude. This goes hand-in-glove with failing to answer the exact auditing command, failing to execute an auditing command, and so forth. And that can happen while running engrams.