Technical Bulletin of 30 May 2000

thomlove wrote:

>You mention if someone is grinding on NOTS:
>
>"If NOTs is grinding then shift them over with a C/S 53."
>
>Would you return them to NOTS after the Super Power 2000 was complete,
>or while mid Super Power 2000 they cog'd on what was bugging them on
>NOTS, would you return them to NOTS at that point?

No, I would complete them on Super Power. Its quite possible that they’ll need to do some NOTs between rundowns as Super Power will open up previously occluded areas of the NOTs case.

>Also, what if there is bogging or grinding on an earlier OT level? I
>know of a few people who never really made any progress on OT3, inspite
>of being on it for years, and inspite of endless sec checks and reviews.
>None of the org handlings seemed to 'work', and so a desperate, 'going
>on hoping' set in for all concerned. In such a case, should the Pre OT
>be shifted over to Super Power 2000, after the appropriate clean up?

Yes, that would be best.

>And, another unrelated question: would there be any reason why someone
>on OT3 would not audit the entities per the NOTS 'what/who' procedure,
>and then use the OT3 procedure as needed, per the NOTS issues? I found
>that the NOTS 'what/who' procedure worked a little better for me than
>the OT3 procedure of Inc II, and Inc I. This was after many, many
>thousands of hours I spent on OT 3 procedures though, so that may have
>introduced an arbitrary.

If they reach a point where NOTs runs more easily then they should be shifted onto NOTs and solo NOTs.
OT3 may not be contactable for many with the faster Clear route after 1978.

Love,

Revenius