Exploring auditing and training over the Internet

What does “workable” mean? (Part 1)

So what does it mean to say that a procedure is workable or it isn’t workable? Or to promote that something is “100% workable on all cases!”

How about when Joe says the process is great (and it was to him) but Sally says it sucks (and it did for her)?

There is always that famous line from KSW1 of asking the auditor when some process appeared not to have worked, “Yes, but what did you really do?” Overall, to get an acceptable result you have to FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS! That applies to anything, whether putting together a flat-pack from IKEA, making a cup of coffee, crossing a busy street safely, or trying to turn off some automated function in Microsoft Word that is screwing up your document.

Some of these things are so familiar that it is not obvious that one is following a specific procedure each time, but one is. Some things are more forgiving than others — coffee can be stronger or weaker, hotter or cooler, but there are limits outside of which the result is not acceptable. There are instructions that go along with giving auditing, and instructions that go along with receiving auditing, and if these are not followed within acceptable limits then the result is not going to be acceptable either.

1. The auditor must be trained up to the level of what he is delivering, and must know how to deliver a proper session, including having the person receiving the auditing be willing to talk about his life and answer the questions as given.

2. The person receiving auditing must know what to do in session when given an auditing command.

3. The person receiving auditing must not be tired, or hungry, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

4. The person receiving auditing must have his attention free enough to run the process being delivered, and not be distracted onto something else.

5. The topic being addressed must be interesting to the person being audited (includes being at the right point on his program if a case program system is in use), and he must be willing to have things happen in session, for things to change, for his considerations to change, for “charge” to come off, to laugh or cry or yawn or belch or whatever else might happen.

6. The process being run has to be relevant to the topic being addressed.

Note that these factors all have to be present before even considering if the process in question is “workable” or not.

Scientology processes aren’t very fault-tolerant. You can cross the road safely despite being hungry and upset, but you can’t have a good session addressing your fear of mice when you’re hungry and have your attention riveted on an argument you just had with your spouse. Insistence on “getting up the Bridge” results in the topic being addressed, the next one on the checklist, being usually of so-so interest to the person being audited, and the process addressing it being of so-so workability. Compared to NO process it is often an improvement, but compared to some procedures available that start off by asking the person being audited what HE wants to address and then addressing only that exact topic with a great process it is not the best. But even a process that is more fault-tolerant still requires some instructions to be followed.

When examining a new process to determine if it is “workable” or not, one must take the above factors into account.

This is of great interest to me because I am presenting new tech, my Rub & Yawn stuff, in many different formats. When people say it was great, I don’t look too closely. But if someone tells me it didn’t do much, I get very interested in finding out exactly what didn’t do much. Did the person follow my instructions, or did they do something else (maybe even thinking they were doing it properly)? Was it perhaps something else entirely that sucked?

We are still in black and white territory here. Either some process is workable or isn’t. I haven’t really even suggested a definition for “workable”. Next post, I think. 🙂



March 21, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss)

Everybody knows Standard Tech (–Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) is bad. Right?

Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (–Hooray!) as it is good for one’s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people’s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.

So you would think Standard Tech (–Hooray!) — SHUT UP! — is easy to define. Well, let’s see.

Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is

4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).

Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? –No, no, one might say, don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? –Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.

The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:

You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.

Standard tech isn’t what I say it is. It’s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn’t for me to say it’s different. And it isn’t for anybody else to say it’s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let’s consolidate it.

It sounds fine when put like that. I’ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?


Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:

IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.

That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?


Let’s zero in on “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.” At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, “But Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.”

Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I’m sure you see where this is going.

After 1966 came things like F/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? –Oh no, of course not, don’t be silly, they’re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.

All right, so it’s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard’s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss). –Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.

I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.

–Yes! Hip Hip—


All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvellous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there’s that stuff about “male clear read” and “female clear read” and a genuine F/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.

–Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You’re just trying to obfuscate the issue.

Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?

–Yes. Right. Hooray!

Now, if you poke around online a bit, you’ll see that Hubbard didn’t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.

Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard’s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don’t.

So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.

It’s a long way from “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,” isn’t it?

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?


March 20, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Auditing Grades without a meter

Self Analysis can be audited easily without a meter. Much of the lower grades are not really that different.

Let’s look at what a meter is used for, assuming that the auditor can read one properly.

Seven meter uses:

1. To see if the main process command gets an instant read. If so, assuming it is a valid read, this is supposed to mean that the pc has reality on the item or question, that he has charge on the item or question, and that the process will run properly.

2. To place items in order of importance by assessing a list for longest read. For example, if assessing Joe? Pete? Anne? gives a big read on Anne, a smaller read on Joe, and no read on Pete, one is supposed to run the process first on Anne, then on Joe, and not on Pete.

3. To show whether or not a process that is ongoing is producing “tone arm action”, i.e., whether charge is being dissipated, or stuff is blowing off, or things are happening. The whole address of auditing is supposed to be in this direction, to get rid of charge or mass, not to uncover interesting significances.

4. To show when a process that has been getting tone arm action is no longer getting tone arm action, or is running down, and is likely to be finished soon.

5. To show the needle phenomenon of a floating needle, which, along with a cognition and very good indicators, is supposed to show that a process or process cycle has ended.

6. To show a blowdown, a sudden discharge of emotional energy or mass. There is a meter drill on spotting blowdowns, and the auditor is supposed to note that whatever is blowing down the TA is hot and likely to be a good source of more tone arm action so keep on it! The auditor is supposed to not interrupt the pc while the pc is having a blowdown.

7. To show a sharply rising TA, indicating a protest or overrun (which is really still a protest).

In brief, 1) To show a read, 2) To show a comparison of reads, 3) To show TA, 4) To show TA tailing off, 5) To show an F/N, 6) To show a blowdown, 7) To show a protest.

Without using a meter, one can still deal with these important items. It does require that the pc is interested in what is going on and willing to discuss things with the auditor.

How to do these seven without a meter:

girl with headphones1. Is the process or item charged? You have to make sure that the pc understands the question and what it encompasses, of course. Then ask if the pc is interested in the item or process. He should learn to recognise early on if something is “hot” or not, and that if it is hot it should be run, even if it makes him uncomfortable to do so.

2. If the pc is interested in running the process, run through the list of items and ask him which one he wants to run first. If he can’t decide between two items then just make an arbitrary choice as it can’t make much difference.

3. In a Rub & Yawn session this is obvious, as the pc will be yawning/sighing etc. while the process or item is discharging and will have stopped yawning/sighing when there is no more discharge occurring. In running processes that are not so intense, it might not be so obvious. But at least the pc should be happily running the process, with things happening that are of interest to him. By “happily” here I mean the pc is glad to be doing it, even if he is sobbing his eyes out.

4. As above. If you as auditor are not sure how the process is going with the pc, ask! How it is supposed to go is that one continues to run a process while it is still producing change in the pc, and stops running the process when it is no longer producing change in the pc.

5. As the process is winding down, with less and less change occurring in the pc, the pc is supposed to have a cognition related to the area being addressed, and very good indicators, and that is the end of the process. These points should be pretty easy to spot without a meter.

6. The auditor needs to be aware of the pc while the pc is running the process. If the pc is working something out or undergoing a brief period of personal revelation, and not saying anything at that moment, the auditor should be aware of it and not continue with the next auditing command just because the pc isn’t saying anything.

7. If the pc is protesting an auditing action, the pc needs to communicate this to the auditor! In an ideal situation, a super-perceptive auditor would pick it up anyway from the pc’s indicators, but it is usually far simpler for the pc to stay in comm with the auditor and originate if the process is not going well.

Repairs and correction lists

The auditor reads out the line to the pc. The pc considers it and says something aloud related to the line. Basically either no; or yes, blah blah blah. The auditor then takes up the item as applicable. And so on.

If there is a more complex repair needed, then it may be beyond the scope of what can be done with standard Scn, unmetered style. An effective repair might involve a higher-classed auditor, maybe a face-to-face metered session, maybe a remote metered session, or maybe even a different unmetered procedure that is not standard Scn at all but is still very effective at repairing Scn sessions.

OK. Additions and comments welcome.


March 17, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Overcoming barriers to distance auditing

girl with head energyHere are some possible barriers to distance auditing:

1. Barrier: It’s not endorsed by every tech opinion leader. Handling: Screw ’em. Progress marches on. Are you man or mouse? Etc. etc. (This could be better worded!)

2. Barrier: I’m not familiar with Skype | No headset | No webcam. Handling: Telephone a friend with Skype and get talked through the (simple) download and installation. You can use Skype without a headset and webcam. Then get a headset and have the friend talk you through getting it working if needed. Then get a webcam. Then just chat to people, no auditing, until you are happy using Skype generally.

3. Barrier: I’m not happy about metering over Skype. Handling: Drop the meter. Do auditing unmetered.

4. Barrier: We can do Book 1, Self Analysis, and Handbook for Preclears unmetered, but that’s all. It’s not much. Handling: You can do pretty much all the lower Grades unmetered, actually. It just needs a slightly different approach. See the next post, “Auditing Grades without a meter.” There are also procedures that aren’t Hubbard-standard, but we’ll keep quiet about those for now — wouldn’t want to upset the natives.

5. Barrier: I would like to get auditing, but can’t afford it. Handling: Options: (1) Find someone willing to co-audit; (2) Find an auditor in training and willing to do it for free; (3) Work out some kind of non-cash exchange with an auditor.

6. Barrier: I’m a trained auditor and would like to audit online but need help. Handling: Post questions here or at the Workable Technology Forum. Others may be willing to drill with you, especially prospective distance auditors in the same position. People wanting free auditing should be available to practise on.

7. Barrier: I’m scared of OSA finding out and getting disconnected from friends or family still in the CofS. Handling: How would they find out? Skype admin is completely anonymous apart from your username. Your identity here or on the Workable Technology Forum is anonymous if you provide no personally identifying information.

I’ll add more as I come across them. Feedback and suggestions welcome. 🙂


March 17, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Telephone counselling is mainstream

cellphoneTelephone counselling is mainstream. It might not be mainstream in Scientology, but it is in the outside world.

From the Wikipedia article on telephone counselling:

Researchers have begun observing a growing trend in which licensed psychotherapists and psychologists are now seeing at least some of their clients via the telephone. A body of research exists comparing the efficacy of telephone counseling to in-person counseling and to no treatment. A recent study found that more than half of clients (58%) who had experienced both in-person and phone counseling preferred phone counseling. A 2002 study found that phone counseling clients rate their counseling relationship similarly to in-person clients. Phone counseling has been established as an effective treatment for diagnoses ranging from depression to agoraphobia.

Now, I’m not saying that telepathic metering is mainstream, but the idea of doing auditing over the phone or Skype should not be looked on as off the wall. Everybody’s doing it. 🙂


March 14, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Auditor ability and distance auditing

David St Lawrence, "Old Auditor"This was posted by David St Lawrence on 11 March as a comment to his earlier post, Distance auditing and open source.

fnx3 [in comment #3] brings up a very real downside of distance auditing. It requires the auditor to “be there” for the PC in spite of distance, distractions and lack of physical presence.

Not all auditors can be there for the PC when they are in the same room, so it is unreasonable to think that any auditor can be successful at distance auditing without the following abilities:

• Able to grant beingness to an extraordinary degree

• Great certainty on what they are doing

• Terrific interest in the PC and what he is doing and saying

• A flawless comm cycle and the ability to perceive what the PC is doing during the comm cycle.

• Ability to focus on the Preclear and the session to the exclusion of everything else.

If the auditor has anything going on in his universe in addition to being there with the PC, the PC will pick up on it and will be out of session to that extent.

The bottom line is that distance auditing is possible and can handle situations where physical presence is not possible, but it requires an excellent auditor who can keep the PC in session, no matter what else is going on.

I have successfully audited in a moving car when I was driving, in a classroom where roll was being called, and at a table in a busy restaurant. If the PC is truly “in session” and trusts the auditor to take responsibility for the session, the PC gets results in spite of external activities that might normally act as distractions.

In successful auditing, the auditor asks the PC to look at something and the PC looks inward to see what can be found. While he is looking, the auditor remains silent and lets him look. In order to do this successfully, the auditor has to be able to perceive what the PC is doing. His attention is on what the PC is doing and nothing else.

Many auditors cannot do this and fail to realize that the PC is aware when the auditor is not there for him. Remember the statement: Auditor plus PC is greater than the bank? It is absolutely true and I verified this once to my complete embarrassment. PC was way down the track running a long incident and I diverted my attention from what he was doing to a piece of paper behind my meter shield. Almost immediately the PC opened his eyes and stared at me in annoyance. He had detected my shift of attention…

That drove home the necessity of being there for the PC at all times. I never made that mistake again.

I have had many informal distance auditing sessions with other OTs where one of us would help the other spot and handle something by inspection. This never required commands or questions or anything but looking at the exact area of distress until everything blew. Once there was sufficient attention focused on the area, masses and ridges just blew. Here again, one had to actually be there and perceive what was going on in order to be of assistance.

I also have the feeling that creative processes may impose a higher requirement on the auditor than negative gain processes like Dianetics which suck the PC in once the process is going.

I say this because I experienced a telephone session recently that was less than satisfactory because the auditor did not have all of the abilities I listed above. My attention was, unfortunately, somewhat on the auditor and I felt that I was not being duplicated. Even though the auditor obviously wanted to help, the session did not produce the results we both wanted because of the factors I mentioned earlier.

For distance auditing to become more widely used and reliable, we need those who can do this successfully to offer coaching to those who wish to improve their skills in this area. It is no more difficult than coaching an ashtray drill successfully. It rehabilitates an OT ability when done to EP.

In summation, distance auditing is not impossible, it just requires a more highly trained auditor.


March 11, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

No auditing is better than any auditing. Huh? Shouldn’t that be. . . ?

There is a famous maxim in Scientology, that any auditing is better than no auditing. It is explained well in this basic Clearbird article, “What is Auditing?”

As an absolute it is not always true, but even mediocre auditing is usually better than nothing and excellent auditing can be priceless if it addresses and resolves what the pc needs to fix in his or her life at that point in time.

Let’s look at distance auditing, the subject of this blog. Is it a normal, everyday activity of people who use Scientology in their lives? No, it isn’t. Is it completely off the wall? No, it’s not that either. Some very highly-trained and experienced auditors have made good use of it in their careers.

Let’s look at some advantages and disadvantages.

Some advantages:

• The convenience of doing it at home, in private, on one’s own schedule
• The cost is lower as there is far less hassle for all concerned
• As a client, one can choose from a wider range of practitioners
• As a practitioner, one can deliver anywhere in the world

Some disadvantages:

• There is less control over a long-distance communication line than if one is face-to-face
• Metering is not as positive, although this is easily compensated for with more emphasis on the pc’s interest and communications to the auditor
• It is not supported by every single tech opinion leader.

The advantages would seem to outweigh the disadvantages. So why isn’t it in wider use? The biggest stumbling block to a broad acceptance and use of distance auditing is that last one — some authorities say it ain’t proper.

I know of highly trained and experienced professional auditors who do distance auditing as well as face-to-face auditing, but they don’t dare speak of it on the record. They fear it will affect their reputation for providing “Standard Tech,”* and therefore their income and livelihood.

Here is an example from my own life. Between 2001 and 2004 I wanted to get some auditing. I wasn’t desperate for it, but I had some spare cash and thought it might be fun. However, I lived and worked with churchies in Los Angeles, and didn’t dare approach a local FZer in case it got out that I was frequenting “the dark side.” And I didn’t want to take a couple of weeks off work and make a long trip somewhere on the *hope* that it would be beneficial. So I did nothing. Finally in 2004 I gave Robert D. a phone call and arranged a session from him on the basis of if I didn’t like it there would be no charge, but if I wanted more it would be such-and-such an hour. I had the phone session, liked it, and never looked back.

After this positive experience in 2004 I wrote about phone auditing on a Freezone message board. I was shocked to discover the general attitude was that phone auditing wasn’t kosher and it is better to wait until one can get auditing “properly,” even if it took years and years. A few days ago I wrote to a FZer prominent in the “Standard Tech” crowd, and he expressed that same attitude. Remember that some people are still sitting in upsets from their CofS experiences 5, 10 or even 20 years ago. Profound relief is possibly only two phone calls and one hour away!

But no. No auditing is better than any auditing.



* “Standard Tech” is a huge button and selling point. I wrote an article here on that.

March 9, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Alan C. Walter did extensive telepathic metering starting in 1965

Alan C. Walter Dallas, TX 1964. Source: www.knowledgism.comIntroduction: Alan C. Walter (1935-2009) is the founder of Knowledgism. Before that he was a highly successful Scn Mission Holder with a string of missions. In the early 60s he was a very busy review auditor at Saint Hill, and in fact developed the first correction lists for LRH. This is from an April 1997 post by Alan to a Controlled Remote Viewing group. I retrieved it today from their archive. Alan is noted as the “poster” here on iCans as I wanted to show him as the author.


I will use the term Attention Bit Locator or ABL to describe the form of electronic measuring devices I use. In 1965, I did a series of experiments with a form of Attention Bit Locator with a partner. Both of us were hooked up to seperate ABL’s, she had me on her ABL and I had her on my ABL. We used a one handed electrode. What was observed was the facilitator would always manifested the same as the client, same resistence indications and needle manifestations. We even used long cords, and processed in separate rooms, noting down the needle manifestations, and resistance indications. They were usually identical.

This was so successful that I used to facilitate all my Executive Directors using this method. I had ten Centers at that time: Dallas. Boston. St. Louis. Kansas City. New York. Beverly Hills. La Jolla. New Orleans. Charlotte. Atlanta. (I sold these Centers in 1970.) As you can see these offices were several hundreds of miles apart.

What was amazing, the thought that occurred in Boston also occurred in Dallas. (My HQ.) and registered on the Attention Bit Locators in both locations simultaneously. I continuously facilitated all of those execs using this method. Basically I kept them in a High Green Zone, using two-way communication, Attention Bit Locators and fundamentals. This was where and when I first began to develop the Clean Slate method of handling. And the Zones technology.

Today we still use these devices and do remote facilitation, often internationally. By having the verification of the Attention Bit Locators, I was able to develop other procedures that validate the “truth or accuracy” of a situation.

I realize this is not CRV, but it does validate the ability to measure thought and intention across great distances.


March 8, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Ask Rolf a question

Rolf DaneIntroduction: Rolf Dane is a CofS-trained Class VIII who has been auditing for 25 years. He lives in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has audited people over the Internet from Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Italy, UK, Scotland, Australia, Israel, South Korea, USA, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Slovenia and the Nederlands. He has a website here. He posted this comment very recently and I am making a main post out of it because I want to give people a chance to ask him questions without it all being buried down in the comments somewhere.

He is very happy to answer questions about distance auditing and training. Simply add a comment to this post and he will add a comment providing an answer.


I use remote metering or telepathic metering. I usually don’t completely depend on the meter as I would in normal session set up. When I assess a list, for instance, I will with some pcs require them to answer each question with yes or no. If the meter responds well with that pc I will do it as in normal session.

Assessing an important list, such as Int Buttons, I would ask the pc to comment on each. If the pc comments verbally it is much easier to determine if the item is charged or not. It will show up on the meter or will be obvious from the pc’s statement and tone of voice.

I have also used a system I learned doing TIR*. You simply have pc grade each item for charge and interest on a scale from 0-10, 10 being the most charged. In doing prepchecking I will simply have the pc answer the question till he runs out of answers and then move onto the next button. That works very well too.


*TIR: Traumatic Incident Reduction, the mainstream version of R3R.

March 7, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Ask Maxim a question

Maxim LebedevIntroduction: Maxim Lebedev lives in Moscow, Russia. He has been auditing over Skype since 2006. His webpage is here. I had a Skype conversation with him a couple of hours ago. He says he delivers standard Scn actions from the bottom up over Skype, including objectives (except CCHs 1-4).

He is very happy to answer questions about distance auditing and training. One of Maxim's sessions Simply add a comment to this post and he will add a comment providing an answer. If there is a problem with understanding since his native language is Russian and not English, I will try to sort that out with him. But if his answer is clearly understandable despite the English not being perfect, I will leave it as-is.

At some future time I will probably edit this post to incorporate the questions and answers into the post itself.  But for now, I will leave both the questions and answers as comments.

EDIT Mar 7, 5:15pm GMT: This is useful. I was talking to Maxim on Skype again. His words here are not verbatim.

PAUL: Tell me about Skype frame rates.

MAXIM: You need a minimum of 15 fps (frames per second) to read the meter properly. ADSL internet lines are much better than cable lines generally. You can see exactly what your sending frame rate and receiving frame rate is by going to your regular Skype box and turning on Tools > Options > Advanced >  Display technical info during calls. Hover the cursor over the video image you want data for, either yours or the other person’s, while you are talking to them. It only works when you are connected to each other.


March 7, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments