|
From: "Virginia McClaughry" <vmcc@icehouse.net> Subject: post 49: talkin' to ol' marty's wife. Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:58:54 -0800 Message-ID: <3a39b3c3.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Ens. Anne Rathbun 1/24/99
I received your letter dated January 12. I would like to correct a couple of things. 1. I do not have a Technical Query. My original query was answered by LRH in the HCOB Confessionals and the NON-Interference Zone, (shown to me and wordcleared in a metered interview). I have done extensive wordclearing on this subject myself, as well as several metered wordclearing cycles at Flag. False data stripping was also attempted to be done, but since where I got the idea was an LRH HCOB, which of course is not false data, that cycle was finished quickly. Rollback in Ethics was also attempted, with the same result. The How To Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist has been completed as well. Since that time I have simply been requesting that the line be corrected to align with LRH more accurately on the subject of sec-checking Solo Nots Pre-Ot’s. 2. I do not feel a conflict of LRH materials exists regarding sec-checking. As you state, the six month check line is based on numerous LRH references. However, Eligibility Sec-checking every 6 months, is not LRH. The LRH references you mentioned do not conflict with each other. It is the line setting up sec-checking every 6 months regardless of any other indicators, that conflicts with the LRH references. Hopefully the above clarifications are of assistance to you. Re: Oec Vol 1, SECURITY HCO CONFESSIONALS. I did not have this volume, so I purchased it, and I will read it, as you requested. Please take note that per the HCOPL INJUSTICE, now that I have taken “maximum recourse” by writing this up to Int and RTC terminals, I can now complete the illegal HCO Confessional form that I was originally on, without any repercussions for doing so. I recently asked the MAA, April, if I could come back to Flag and go directly on and complete the HCO Confessional which I am mid, and then get back on the level. April said no, I would have to change my viewpoint to that it is not an illegal confessional, and that I would not be allowed back on the level until I did. Is this correct that I have to change my viewpoint to that the HCO Eligibility Confessional is not in violation of the HCOB’S C/S Series 73RB, and Confessionals and the NON-Interference Zone, before I can get back on the level? Please let me know. While awaiting your answer, I will study the references you suggested. ARC,
|
