From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 9 - November 1992

On Service Facs
By Bob Ross, USA

David Mayo's article on Service Facs in IVy 5 has helped me greatly to 
blow some implicit invalidations resulting from my own difficulties in 
following Ron's directions. However, I think that Mayo is too 
pessimistic on the subject. Ser Facs can be found easily and run.

I was at SH in '63 when Ser Fac running was developed. I well recall, 
my pc, saying to me, day after day "I never make people wrong". I then 
found a BD item on my list which was not a Ser Fac but which when 
prepchecked ran gorgeously, with lots of TA. Following that we got an 
item, I think it was "being strong" which he immediately recognized as 
making others wrong. He didn't make them wrong, the item did. All he 
had to do was be strong and they were wrong.

Mayo's article brought home to me that one of the major weaknesses as 
well as strengths of $Tech is command clearing. His article refers 
only to command clearing when listing for and running of Service Facs, 
with emphasis on the idea of computation. I had other experiences with 
command clearing while doing my interneship at FCDC.

What may not be fully realized by people who got into Scn later than 
about 1965 is that word clearing and command clearing, in session were 
methods which made it possible to get results by auditors who did not 
themselves understand what they were doing.

Command or question

About 1977 at FCDC I was flunked for clearing questions on 2WC by my 
twin on the interneship. This was upheld by the interne sup. and by 
the OEC (Org Exec Sec) who came in the door at that moment and said, 
"Look up the difference between question and command in the 
dictionary". I had learned in 1957 on my HCA/HPA course at FCDC that 
Ron used question and command interchangeably. However, this data is 
buried in a tape and is not in print.

I had to do a lot of digging, to prove my point because I could not 
recall what tape it was on. That question meant the same as command is 
a datum that has apparently gotten lost. This would not be apparent to 
old timers unless they got flunked like I did in an Org, for doing 
what was right. In my own defense in 1977, on the flunk for clearing 
questions on two way communication, I was finally able to find in an 
early Red Volume, data on Op Pro by Dup in which Ron implicitly refers 
to the questions of Op Pro by Dup as the commands of the processes. I 
later found another bulletin where the same thing was true of another 
process.

I traced this attitude at FCDC (Founding Church, Washington DC) back 
to the FCDC Senior C/S, Jeannie Franks, Class IX, who later became 
Jeannie Bogvad. I was also flunked on a session for putting Suppress 
and Inval in on each question which did not read or F/N, when doing a 
list M3 that I had previously done M5. I was interviewed on this by 
the new Qual Sec, who had just been trained for the post by Jeannie 
and was holding the post of Cramming Officer (Cramoff), from above. We 
agreed that M3 is By-passed Charge Assessment, following which the 
Qual Sec as Cramoff wrote down on my cramming order that I should look 
up the terms By-passed, Charge and Assessment.

Assesment or auditing

I was supposed to understand from this that BPC Assessment was an 
Assessment procedure, and that, when a question did not read or F/N on 
a list, it was necessary to put Suppress and Inval in on the list 
rather than on the question. This obviously had Jeannie as source as 
well because as a Class VI at that time, I was able to get most of my 
points across to her Class IV auditors who made up FCDC staff. I 
figured that this had been enforced on Jeannie at Flag. Whoever the 
original source for this foolishness was, had apparently never read 
the definition of BPC assessment in Tech Dictionary and in the Book of 
Case Remedies, where it says that despite the name BPC assessment is 
auditing not assessment. So this must have been and maybe still is a 
problem world-wide.

By the way, as a matter of interest, in a used book shop the other day 
in Glendale CA, I found a copy of the Tech Dictionary marked at $79, 
Dianetics Today marked at $135 and Tech volumes each marked at $129, 
$1329 for the set.

I have been forced many times to spend my preclears time and money 
clearing commands and doing a C/S-1 on Dianetics when this could have 
been done far more cheaply, if it needed to be done at all, by putting 
the pcs on a course.

Rewording commands

In 1957 on my HCA/HPA course I learned to word and create commands 
that my pc could understand and to create undercuts when the pc could 
not run what had been given by Ron. In 1963 when running ARC straight 
wire on my pc at Saint Hill. I did this because my pc could not run 
the process as given. (This was before the days when a process had to 
read to be run.)

I assessed a list of synonyms, found synonyms that read well in place 
of A, R and C and ran those for several days with great TA action. I 
was then told to run the commands as originally given and at that 
point they ran well also.

In running 5-way help in 1957, standard procedure was to ask the pc 
what help meant to him (her) and then run the process to a flat point. 
After that one asked the pc again what help meant and ran the process 
to another flat point, and continued that way till the process EP'd. 
The pc's definition would change, change, change.

Now back to Service Facs.

In 1977, I was run on full expanded grades processes by my auditor, 
Graduate Class Four auditor Connie Cambron. When we got to Ser Facs, I 
let her know that there was a lot more to be found than what $Tech 
called for and she listed and ran about 70 charged items per my Cogs 
in the matter.

We did not limit ourselves to the type of question that David Mayo 
gives in his essay, "What do you use to make others wrong?" Instead I 
had her list for Ser Facs using the following non-accusative questions 
developed from the R3SC formula. Right. Wrong, Dominate, Survive, and 
Solve, plus others.

Flow l. Right/Wrong:

	What would make you right?
	What would make another wrong?
	How have others been wrong?
	What makes you right?
	How have you been right?
	What do you do that makes you right?
	What do you do that keeps you from being made wrong by another?
	What would prove that things have gone Right/Wrong?

Altogether I developed about 70 questions, using all brackets and all 
flows, including, "What do others (or another) use to make you wrong?" 
etc.

I changed the rules a bit further on this in that I had my auditor 
take up every reading item just as one would on a Dianetic List, 
tackling the BD items first. In other words I did not treat this as an 
L&N list exclusively. I did not assume that there was only one 
possible reading item.

One gives the pc a chance to answer each question whether the question 
reads or not but leaves it immediately, if it did not read and the pc 
has no interest in it.

We found, my auditor and I, that some items ran only on the bracket on 
which they had been listed and not on the full R3RSC formula. Thus if 
the pc had an answer for "What do you do that aids your survival?" 
that read, it might only run for a few minutes on the subject of 
survival and not read or run at all on Right/Wrong or Dominate/Escape 
Domination.

I developed additional questions using every definition of Ser Fac 
that Mayo discussed in his article, e.g. "What would get you out of 
things?" "What would excuse or explain failure?" and so on.

Each such Ser Fac with or without an expressed computation, was 
something the pc used as a prepared, fixed solution that made it 
unnecessary to look at similarities and differences in present time.

My full expanded list is available in my Tech Bulletin No. 5 written 
in 1987. Roland Barkley also had a method of finding a subtle kind of 
Ser Fac that the standard questions don't begin to touch. He gave that 
in a lecture at a European Free Zone Conference and I published it as 
my Bulletin #6.