Well, now the truth comes out — it’s all part of a Disney-Aladdin fantasy!

Sorry Mike and Foolproof I see I only added unneeded data to
the actual topic.

Ok Mike. We’ll leave it there. By the way, I didn’t think I was being that polite! I thought I was being quite ornery and cantankerous! Then – maybe I am not as “fundamentalist” as I believe as I am – ha! Thanks for your politeness, and patience. And the work that you do here.

Fair enough. I appreciate your politeness and willingness to communicate. Unfortunately, you will not likely find much satisfaction in trying to debate the merit of scientology tech any more than you would debating the merits of any other religion. There are skeptics and true believers on the far sides of every one of those debates, and neither manages to convince the other of the value of their view.

Ok, I am fed up with it all now as well! The thread has been derailed, partly through my fault for getting into too much detail, but the main point I was making is that Swamplandforsale uttered that the tech contains “embedded lies” and I simply asked him what are these so-called “embedded lies”. But I am still waiting to hear about these “embedded lies” and I doubt that they will be forthcoming – as of course – they don’t exist, or, if they do, then let’s hear about them and see what’s what. That was my main point.

This story (for me) is similar to a guy I know who went around saying that LRH HCOBs were contradictory and when I asked him which HCOBs exactly were “contradictory” then I was answered with silence and (brief) petulance that someone had dared ask him such a question, as of course the “contradictions” don’t exist either and his little party piece bubble was pricked. In both cases I am simply asking for specifics.

Sorry — this is exactly what I mean. Any discussion of tech quickly devolves into a “quotes and references fest” of “this is what this all really means and THIS is the reference that sorts it all out.” I wasn’t trying to discuss where ARC Breaks are handled before OWs or MWHs. I was simply correcting an incorrect statement that proclaimed “LRH said” blows come from MWH’s not O/Ws. Which then had added into it some sort of explanation about ARC Breaks. I was trying to make a point about this, not get into a back and forth about what “reference applies.” This is a terrible forum for such discussions as it invites endless back and forth about what is right “according to the tech.”

Thanks for your references Mike. You are correct in that
there so many issues that talk about ARCX’s, O/W’s, MWH’.s
etc. it is hard to really carry on such a discussion.
I would sight two easy ways to sort it out (in my opinion).
First the C/S 53 is in sequence of outnesses on a case and
those items that read should be handled first in that
sequence. On a 53 ARCX questions come before Overt/WH’s
in handling sequence. Also the other items in this sequence that
come before ruds is out Int and of course out Lists. LRH has
said many times that an out list, wrong why, wrong items etc.
cause a large amount of upset on a case….ARCX’s. Handling on
the L4BRA (or whatever it is called now) does include ARCX,
Overt and W/H handling. Many areas of the tech handle out
ruds but the sequence on any correction list is out int, out lists,
then out ruds with ARCX first in that sequence.
Then of course if one has a very upset or ARCX’y PC a L1C
is quite useful.
There is really no need to go over questions of ARCX’s,
W/H’s and Overts as a tech terminal….just do a C/S 53,
Green Form or Green Form 40. Or the L1C if ruds won’t
fly. These correction lists can sort out these questions
posed from my point of view and use. To me it is a pretty
simple affair.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!! Nice! I hadn’t thought about the ‘held down key’ for decades! You’re good!

Oh for the love of mankind let’s hope so! Real soon! Real, real soon. Like…today!