Technical Bulletin of 15 May 2000

Some Answers:

thomlove wrote:

>I'm beginning to start my hatting for running Super Power 2000. I have a
>couple of minor questions...
>
>I presume that it is to be run after Clear, and before OT I. Is that
>true? The reason I ask is because of the comment, "One will also have to
>work through the OT levels 1 - 8 for that. However it is a route that
>will speed up those levels. For an OT8 Super Power is part of OT9. R3XD
>is more of it."
>
>So I gather from this that the proper location on the Bridge is
>immediately after Clear.
>
>However, that perplexes me a little, due to the various issues on the
>'Non-Interference Zone'.

Its going to vary from person to person. If a Clear is running into BTs etc then I would move them up through OT levels. If they are quite extroverted then go ahead on Super Power. I wouldn’t run Super Power in the midst of OT1-3. After that its really a C/S adjudication. If NOTs is grinding then shift them over with a C/S 53. If they are running well on NOTs with good wins then you wouldn’t interrupt it.

Tommy Thompson wrote:

> I got this com from a fellow, who seems to be on our side.

>As I see it, Super Power is supposed to be a series of processes which
>handle a kind of flow zero PTSness.  To use an analogy, if the L's are
>considered a "R/H side" handling because the person is overtly
>restraining themselves, then Super Power is a "L/H side handling".

Its addressing both sides. The left side rundowns would be used first. Anything addressing valences or identities is a left side handling.

Anything addressing actions, overts or purposes/goals is a right side handling.

Then there are other rundowns that are positive processes not directly addressed to left or right side.

Tigerlily wrote:

>That is cool, I'm happy someone is interested.  I'm not doing this just for
>case gain you know, but to help test out this new tech.  I have an idea
>which may be an improvement...instead of cdeinr with KRCP, I bet curious,
>desired, necessary, unwanted, unknown, refused would work better.  This
>issue II addresses heavy points on the track, points when a person felt like
>a victim, and the handling of KRCP cdeinr is hardly enough to key out what
>gets keyed in so an auditor really needs all his tools at hand to run this
>safely.  That means everything on the lower levels, Nots, GMPs, listing,
>whatever it takes.

Quite a few other buttons apart from CDEINR could be used. If buttons come up for a particular pc regularly then you could add them for that pc. If the pc originates another button then I would acknowledge it just as in ARC break handlings.

Alex mentioned my criticism of the “Ron’s Orgs”. Bill’s briefings concerning his levels have been in circulation for quite a while. The upper levels particularly from “Excalibur” up are stretching somewhat in trying to audit from a smaller viewpoint to a larger one. It would be preferable to shift someone up to a higher viewpoint first. “Excalibur” should run much more easily after sorting out the dynamics. The person’s own overts and withholds are insufficiently addressed. The whole track doesn’t consist of the “good guys” versus the “bad guys” with the same guys having been the “Holy Crusaders for the Forces of Light” since the inception of time. You have to pick up all flows on “Excalibur” not just what the bad guys are doing. It has to be run from a position of responsibility not effect. The data on the “Body Org” seems to be false but I’ll need to look at it more thoroughly after the current work on OT9 and OT10. Bill seems to have skipped a few levels and in consequence I think you will see a fair bit of dub-in on the higher levels.

Thomlove mentioned some more questions to take up??

Love,

Revenius