Русская версия

Site search:

CONTENTS TR TRAINING UNDER LRH Interne A: Interne B: Interne C: Interne D: Interne E: Interne F: Interne G: Interne H: Interne I: Interne J: Interne K: Interne I: Interne M: Interne N: Interne O: Interne P: Interne Q:
Reissued 12 July 1974 AS BTB
Cancels HCO Bulletin of 20 September 1972
Remimeo TR Crse Super Hat HPCSC HSCSC Professional TR Crse All Crses with TRs


Toward the end of 1971 LRH began requiring that Flag Internes send him taped sessions of their auditing. Ron would listen to these and make invaluable corrective comments. The stress of course was on TRs and session presence. The Interne, after listening to LRH model aud­iting tapes, and correcting the outnesses noted in his own taped session, would tape another session and submit it. And so on until Flag standards were attained, at which time the Interne passed on his TRs with an LRH OK.

Needless to say, Ron sets a very high standard and the results achieved from this program once again high­light the datum, „Do what Ron says!“.

The following advices and corrections were aimed at particular TR outnesses heard in the taped sessions of specific Internes. They are quoted here exactly as Ron wrote them. Listen to a few LRH model sessions and you’ll really hear what perfect auditing sounds like.

Interne A:

„Your tone is okay. Your diction needs some work. You tend to muffle at times and words are not clear. LRH“

And after another taped session,

„You are running so dully that the pc is fogged out. Could even be running things that don’t read. But TRs are too dull. LRH“

Interne B:

This Interne indicated by her C/S comments that she really didn’t understand what was going on with the pc. LRH commented in the next C/S:

„…certainty of auditing affects TRs. One doesn’t have good TRs on a case he doesn’t dig. And lack of such knowledge makes one think he is losing when he isn’t… LRH”

Interne C:

This comment was directed from LRH to the Interne Supervisor after hearing a taped session by this Interne.

„There’s a momentary comm lag on his TR 2  — I suppose it’s a ‘wanting to be sure’. It is not easy. Running O/Ws he would drag the pc into Itsa and O/R. It is slight. The rest is good. Improve TR 2. Love LRH.”

In response to this the following note and another taped session went up to Ron from this Interne: „Dear Sir: The following was out with me. I was listening for the pc to finish. I was not controlling the pc’s communication. Hence the pc was out of session to that degree, which would also cause excessive Itsa. I was also afraid of ARC Breaking the pc when it was just good TR 2…“ LRH replied to this note and the tape as follows:

„At the risk of breaking somebody’s heart by correction, this pc is not in session and the TR 1 is now rushed. The Auditor is tense. Pc keeps talking after ack. This ‘afraid he’d ARC Break the pc’ is actually TR 0. Have this Auditor listen to some of my demo tapes. TR 3 is supposed to be a newly originated TR 1, not a mechanical action. He is not doing badly. But there is no reason why a really good job of training can’t be done. If he’s this tense or anxious, if his zero is not natural and easy and if TR 1, 3 are out then it falls back to an uneasy 2 and pc not under control. Clear also definition of ‘in-session’. He is still trying too hard. Perfect auditing sounds as natural as rain while being as disciplined as a Prussian drill master. Love R. “

And finally,

„Excellent. 1000 percent improved. Love R. “ (Tape was passed.)

Interne D:

Comment on taped session:

„Not too bad. A bit soft. (Tape quality poor, not loud enough.) TR 2 is too slow and doesn’t get pc really acked so you get a sleepy, draggy session. Love R. “

Interne E:

Remarks on taped session:

„You need to differentiate and shift between Tone 40 assessing and Auditors’ TRs as some of the assessing Tone 40 carries over at times to TR actions. Otherwise seems good. You could overwhelm a pc this way. Re-listen to the tape about half through and you’ll see it. Also there’s a TR 2 chop before pc can cog on the F/N. Love R. “

And another, later tape from the same Interne:

„This is pretty mechanical. Voice goes over the same tone patterns with the same drop at end. It is the end which must impinge, there’s a trifle of chop. These TRs would be overwhelming on a rocky pc. Slowness and fastness have nothing to do with it. It’s tone and hit. Love R. “

Interne F:

„Comm lag TR 2, varied with chop and over ack. Will cause the pc to drag out answers and give slow sessions. Also improve the naturalness. It’s a trifle robot in spots. You should have an even pace, uniform quality. Love R. “

Another tape from this Auditor:

„Don’t try to audit in such a noisy environ­ment. The auditor is responsible for environment.

The TRs are not too bad. They need work, particularly zero as they are too soft. Diction and crispness are missing. Love R. “

Interne G:

Tape submitted requesting an OK to audit Class VI:

“In assessment you have doubt or near lilt. You are putting a bit of a question in it. It won’t impinge for Class. Sometimes it’s ——/, sometimes ———, sometimes ¯¯¯¯¯\, but always a no-impinging statement. You want ¯¯¯¯¯¯\, a statement.

Interne H:

„Comm lag TR 2 is keeping pc in over-comm. A TR 2 must not chop but it must not comm lag either. You only do it once in a while. TRs are otherwise OK. Love R. “

And another:

„A bit too Tone 40. Your drill is good. It’s just a bit overwhelming to the pc. Lists are done T 40 but regular TRs don’t go this strong. Learn to shift gears from list assessment TRs to Auditing TRs. Love R. “

And another:

„Monotone semi-Tone 40 acks. You’re almost there. It’s just not quite natural. LRH. “

In another instance:

„TR 1 very dull, even bored, mechanical, as though you’re just learning the commands. Needs a lot of work, TR 2 too flat but also somehow Tone 40. Work on it, Love R.”

And finally:

„Well, well, quite an improvement. Get it so it’s easy and no effort for you to do. Love R.”

Interne I:

„OK. You’re coming along fine. Your TRs are a trifle tense at times and at times a bit mechanical (just quoting a line, not saying it to the pc). Come off of quote and same tone (all commands sound the same tone). Listen to it and you’ll hear it. Love R.”

Another tape from the same Interne:

„Enormously improved. Just a trifle wound up doll. Also the tone rise on the end of a command makes it sound like a question. Cuts the impingement. Love R. “

And another:

„Sorry, your TR 2 is bad. It doesn’t get to the pc. For Dn especially, comm lag on next command in favor of admin. Attention really not on pc so he runs on and on. This is the most offhand TR 2 I’ve heard for some time. It’s an upswing with a sort of question in it, LRH. “


„Too mechanical. TR 2 poorly timed. Once late, once early. Too admin interested. Not quite with the pc. TR 0 may be a bit out. Work on it some more. Not the worst I’ve heard. Love R.”

Another in which the Interne made this comment: „Any latent ack was due to a BD,“ to which LRH replied:

„Never heard of a latent ack being required on a BD. Hidden data line? Get the doubt or question out of your TR 2. Don’t rush at it so hard. It’s much better. Love R. “

And this one:

„It’s better. Why be in a flap about it? It’s easy. You make it too hard. Your TR 4 was flubbed. Pc originates picture was erasing, you asked if picture erasing. Drill diction and TR 4. Love R. “

And this:

„Too mechanical. Good TRs requires real interest in the pc and what is going on. Listen to some of my auditing sessions. Don’t listen to words. Listen to tone and interest. The pc responds poorly to mechanical monotone TRs as he feels brushed off. If you do TRs make it OT Zero and TR 0 not the rest. Love R. “

And this one to the same Interne:

„Greatly improved. Work now a bit on your TR 2 so you don’t chop. It’s just a hair too quick. Also TR 1 is not quite to the pc. You almost have it. Love R. “

And an other:

„No TR 2 at all. Pc is talking on and on and on because he is not acked at all. If you did this on L 10 or Grade 2 you would have about one item an hour instead of 10 or 15 and the pc would never get through at all. This went from a chop to no TR 2. Threw the pc out of session, put him in boredom. On most of tape TR 2 is OK. But it still varies from chop to no. Many are OK. Get them all that way. Love R. “

And this one:

„The idea is not to get a pass. It’s to have good consistent TRs. This needs OT 0, TR 0 and obnosis and TR 2 as it (TR 2) cuts in and half acks too often. Love R.”

Interne J:

In Feb 1972, before LRH model demo tapes were in use, the following comment was made by Ron in response to an Interne taped session:

„He flunks. Where do Internes get their TR model? Recent ones I’ve heard are strained rushing the pc, chopping, overwhelming, no interest in pc, but only in rapping out com­mands. Who is setting this weird style? LRH. “

And later, after listening to LRH model auditing demo tapes:

„Congratulations on a vast improvement. LRH“

Interne K:

„Too mechanical. Too monotone. You sound like you’re reading the commands. Work on it to get some interest and ARC in your TRs. Listen to some LRH tapes. Love R. “

Interne I:

„Assessment and Inds of F/N are not top grade. On assessment the Qs get run together. Impingement is poor. On Inds it’s an ‘unimportant’ inflection. Needs some work. Otherwise quite good, Love R,“

Four days later:

„You almost got it. TR 2 has a lilt  —  —  —  —  that gives a question to the ack. Rest is ab­solutely great. Love R,“ (The next day a tape was passed.)

Interne M:

Auditor sent up a tape for LRH comment and correction.

“… this needs a lot of work. When you audit it sounds nervous and rushed, quite unlike your natural voice and you introduce a speech impediment in your TRs. Needs a lot of work. Accounts for any trouble you’ve had. Glad you finally sent one. Get it handled flat out. Love R. “

Another tape went up two days later:

„This is greatly improved. LRH. “ (Tape was passed.)

Interne N:

Interne submitted a tape of a Word Clearing session.

„Re tape. WC tapes aren’t really acceptable. However, this auditing has the following needing correction.

1. Comm lag TR 2. Pc isn’t really acked. Also begins talking again after TR 2.

2. Auditor using up session time by ack, then admin, wait, new command.

3. This session is not really in control of the auditor.

I wish you’d just do some auditing on a tape that is good TR auditing and send it up. You never heard me do these things on a tape in your life. An auditor runs the session. This is done by flawless TRs in use in the session. Love R. “

Another tape from the same Auditor:

„Not OK on TR tape. These TRs sound lax or disinterested. They are an attitude of some sort. Sort of like a brush-off or unimpor­tant. Or like the pc isn’t important. Get Prod Cleared Long Form Esto Series 11. Then listen to some LRH sessions. Try again. LRH. “

And another tape from the same Interne. Comments are to the Interne Super:

„Rushed. Chops with TR 2. Too robot. Cough-habit. He sort of keeps climbing up on top of the pc. Pc would get to feeling pushed. Throat clear — as a mannerism not acceptable. LRH. “

And finally:

„That’s excellent, good and businesslike and interested and natural. You got it! LRH.” (Session passed.)

Interne O:

Sent up a Dianetic OK to audit tape for LRH OK. This note came down to the Interne Super:

„Not OK. He is very busy in a session with notes pad etc, must be distracting to a pc. His TR 2 is too off hand. He sort of sounds like it isn’t important, pretty mechanical, not too interested in pc. LRH. “

And another tape submitted later:

„Not bad but  — just a trace of impatience. Not smooth smooth yet. Results in session control too poor. Doesn’t get the question answered. Pc a trifle conscious of the impa­tience, not really in session. The sing­song of the question tone doesn’t comm to the pc. TR 2 infrequent. LRH. “

And another 3 days later:

„That’s excellent, good, personalized intention. You won’t have any trouble with session control now. Love R. “ (Tape was passed.)

Interne P:

After her first taped session to LRH:

„I wish you’d sent up a tape earlier. You’ve done a lot of auditing. You have a lilt in your questions that will get you no impinge­ment  —  —  —  — . It is so pronounced it will make you miss reads on items and lists as it expresses negation of the Q. Try again. Love R.”

And another 3 days later:

„Not bad. You have a lilt  —  —  —  —  that will injure impingement. The acks could be more natural, work on it. Diction is a point here. Good commands are a trifle blurred at times due to a bit of rush. This isn’t bad. Just needs perfecting. LRH. “

Six days later another tape went up and returned with the following comments:

„You’re better. This pc is running a comm lag. He’s not quite with it. Correction of his answers may be the reason. I think TR 4 is out as pc is not in session. Get more inter­ested, get off any exasperation. Practice TR 4. Listen to tapes of my auditing. Get a better presence. Love R.”

And another tape 8 days later:

„Lack of TR 2 is making this pc feel she is not being heard so she drags out her answers. This would be fatal running O/Ws or L10. Pc would start hunting, thinking the auditor wanted something else. You even bleed it after the pc has gone on and on and on. F/N doesn’t come as pc tense. Pc not in session, even giving auditor earlier similars in one place. Auditor seems invisible and nervous. Gotten worse since last test tape. LRH. “

4 days later:

„You have something going here on TR 2. You may have introduced some arbitrary of your own like wanting to see if that is all. Do OT 0 TR and TR 0 until you can be wholly relaxed in a session and then your session control will come up. The pacing is ragged. Now very too fast speaking on TR 1, then a drag comm lag TR 2. Work on it some more as above. Love R. “ Then, 13 days afterward:

OK: „LRH“ NOT OK: (Tape passed.)

Interne Q:

A deadline had been set by Ron for Internes to submit tapes. This Interne asked for an extension as her voice had been cracking on the tape and she had to clear it on several occasions. LRH replied:

„No extension granted. Tape not passed. Get your TR 0 in so pcs don’t cave in your chest. And drill TRs so they don’t lilt  —  —  —  —  and get less toss-off and less offhand. Auditing is a more important business. Work on it. Love R. “


Hope the above helps you to achieve Flag Standards in your HGC!

R. Strauss
Tech Compilations Flag
Reissued as BTB by FMO 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow