Notes on the Golden Age of Tech 1

Page 1, 2


Catherine wrote:

> By 'The blind leading the blind', do RTC mean Hubbard?

No, of course not.

If I remember correctly, they were referring to the not uncommon
scenario wherein the coach of a drill, and even the supervisor of the
course, were unfamiliar with the kinds of situation that come up in
auditing sessions.

It's a long time since LRH was personally training students. And the
church has also expanded geographically. A new student is far less likely
to be trained by someone who worked with LRH than they used to be.

Also unless we are careful, additives tend to creep in and
become habitual around the globe (like shaking one's hands before a
cans squeeze, or the 'wins session' at the end of a course period).

It's not an easy job keeping training standard around the world. I
think the Golden Age of Tech was a good move and helps to do this.

I go over my reasons near the end of the following essay:

> If so,do any Cof$ members out there find such a statement to be
> *massively* disrespectful of Hubbard and also to carry the implication that
> INT MGMT knows better than Ron did?.

It's not applicable since they weren't referring to LRH. I'm quite
surprised that you could think that they might have been.

The Academy course checksheets have never been written directly by
LRH. They are always produced by the compilations unit of the day. The
new GAT ones are simply more stringent and contain more drilling.

> Compare 'new,improved' books with the old versions,issued by LRH.Spot the
> changes.

Done. However many of them weren't issued directly by LRH but again
were issued by the compilations unit. They would take extracts from
his other work and rewrite them into book chapters. It's important to
understand this.

> There's a word for this alter-is,isn't there.
> It's called SQUIRRELING!

No, it isn't. I suggest that you read both the essay linked above and
the references cited in it.



Go to Page 2

Main Index <----