6206C12 SHSpec-161 Middle Rudiments

When you ask a second question or double question a PC, you are omitting
TR-2 and Q and A'ing gorgeously. TR-2 is an auditor weak point. An adequate
acknowledgement is worth a great deal. "Do you have a PTP?" "I had a fight
with my wife?" "What about?" -- this is Q and A. In trying not to Q and A,
one can err by not getting the auditing question answered. It is not Q and
A. is a comm lag that exists until the PC answers the auditing question.
This requires that the auditor hear what the PC said, so TR-2 should include
understanding and acknowledging. Auditors create more ARC breaks by failing
to understand but pretending to. The auditor now has a missed withhold. Just
put the onus on the auditor for failing to understand and get the PC to repeat
it. On TR-10: "Point out something," the auditor should know what the PC is
pointing at and may need to ask. It is fins for him to do so.

All rudiments must contain an answer to the question asked. If they do,
the auditor must just understand and acknowledge. That is all that happens.
Only when it is manifestly impossible to clean it up with repetitive single
questions does the auditor resort to a ruds process. The rudiments are now
good enough so that if the PC gets the auditor's question and answers it, and
the meter is cleaned on that exact question, and the auditor's TR's are any
good, then you don't need any rudiments process.

In using a repetitive rudiment, you ask the question, acknowledge the
PC's answer, and check the meter. If not clean, repeat the question until,
after a cycle of PC answer, acknowledgement, and meter check, the meter is
clean. This actually acts as a process in itself. Don't wait around for the
PC to find, e.g., a PTP if the meter is clean when you ask for it. If it is
null, just acknowledge and go on. You are actually thereby giving the PC his
answer, or you are giving him the answer the meter gave. The last question is
thus answered by the auditor for the PC. This completes the communication
cycle. Just repeating a phrase to the PC will de-intensify it in the bank.
If it is equivocal because of a dirty needle or poor metering, check it
again. Let the PC know what you are doing and why. Do this enough so that
the PC isn't left wondering in the dark. Always keen the PC's R in. Tell him
what is going on. A PC who is screaming is less ARC broken than one who won't
talk to you.

You should put in middle ruds when the PC is having trouble listing more
goals. Give the package question slowly enough so that you can stop and clean
whatever reads. Then go back to listing goals. You should attack mid ruds so
as to spend minimal time on them, so every time listing slows down, zip
through them. Every fifth session or so, they have enough out-of-session
nonsense going to benefit from some prepchecking. Suppose the PC gets
resistive in a session, where you did get beginning ruds in. Go ahead on
middle ruds and prepcheck, using middle ruds for zero questions. This will
pick up things like inval of goals as a subject, or listing as a subject. That is the commonest thing that causes the PC to stop listing.

On a PC who is on the verge of telling you what to do all the time, a
critical PC who is continually suppressing suggestions about your auditing,
you can use She buttons, "suggest" and "fail to suggest". These fit in well
with a prepcheck. In middle ruds, you are only interested in the immediate
session, to keep the needle clean and readable and to keep the PC in session.
When doing your four-line list on the goal, do mid-ruds between lines. In
prepchecking, you put in middle ruds after each "what" question is null, then
recheck the "what" question. This is a fancier way to ask for missed
withholds, so don't also ask for them. If She PC is down on havingness
consistently, you could do middle ruds, then havingness, then recheck the
"what" question. Use mid-ruds when the PC has slowed down, shut up, run into
problems, etc.

Middle rudiments make an excellent communication bridge. You can put
anything in with the middle ruds following it.

If you are prepchecking against a prepared sec check list and you get
five or six questions cleaning up with only the zero question, do the middle
ruds in case he is suppressing something. If the middle ruds were found to be
out, you go back and do what you were doing over again, except in listing.

The use of middle rudiments can be extended to a specific subject,
object, or activity. If you are checking out a goal, for instance, you can
put in mid-ruds on that goal. Keep it fairly specific or you will be getting
into a prepcheck. You could probably put in every other rudiment with the
mid-ruds. For instance, say the PC gives the same PTP twice and it still
reads, on beginning ruds. You could put in mid-ruds on that problem, naming
it in the commands. LRH doesn't advise this, but it could be done.

Sometimes you add "half-truths", etc., from end ruds, but if you really
have to do this, it is smarter to end off and restart the session. If the PC
needs this, short sessioning is better anyway. You can also do end ruds on
prepchecks, where they are useful to pick up overts and withholds.

If you can't get mid-ruds in, you can try prepchecking them. A PC who
has a somewhat dirty needle and has to have mid-ruds done often will benefit
from a mid-ruds prepcheck. If that doesn't do the job, the PC should probably
have more CCH's and general prepchecks.

LRH has become expert in fish and fumble. Ig the PC's needle was
dirtying up and not getting cleaner after ruds, he would start the session
with fish and fumble to clean up the needle. Before doing anything else, he
would say, after beginning ruds, "I want you to carefully consider your
auditing." Nothing happens. "Now carefully consider your wife." Lots of
reads. Now clean it up, tracing down only one pattern at a time. The double
tick should be handled first, because it is a missed withhold. It takes a
bright auditor to clean it well. It is necessary to ask something that will
keep the read, or just to pursue the read one started with, or to formulate a
what question. You can really clean it up so the needle doesn't get dirty
again. The way bad auditing could dirty it up again is for the auditor's TR-2
to be so bad that everything the PC says is automatically an inadvertent missed
withhold. [Fish and fumble procedure is also given as a TR in HCOB 14Jun62
"Class IIc TR's".]

One of the virtues of fish and fumble is that it is a fast way of
cleaning up the needle, though it could be overused. It is usually necessary
only two or three times, The vital read to clean up first is the double tick,
the missed withhold. It is pretty easy, using fish and fumble, just to clean
it up. Fish and fumble make it possible to do a goals assessment, which
otherwise would be virtually impossible, It does require the auditor to be
inventive in figuring nut what overt might be connected to the read that the
PC is telling you about. You need to get the pattern of the mind, which is
that if there is something the PC is reading on, he has either done something
to or with it.

If you are doing prepchecking, fish and fumble gives you a wide-open
chance to clean up the needle. Fish and fumble cleans up the needle so that
you can prepcheck, and is a barbaric cousin to the prepcheck.