In article <426f892c@news2.lightlink.com>,
  "Rogers.  D.Scn." <The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com> wrote:

 > Why don't you restudy the materials on
 > withhold as well as missed withhold and sort it out, instead of 
attacking
 > those who would correct you - for the benefit of yourself as well as 
your
 > pcs?


For anyone who might begin to believe your idiocy and for the record, 
Withhold is the subject of an entire Grade, Grade 2. Missed Withhold is 
a rudiment. Anyone who follows your advice deserves the outcome they 
get(, which would not be all that bad provided the auditing was good). 
But the usual rudiment is Missed Withhold not Withhold as you assert. 
Now having said that, the auditor is authorized per C/S Series 1, and 
justified by whatever good sense he might possess, in flying whatever 
rudiment he suspects to be or have gone out.

Your Master wrote in HCOB 3 May 1962, "We don't have to clean up all 
the withholds if we keep the Missed Withholds cleaned up.

"Give a new auditor the order to clean up "Missed Withholds" and he or 
she invariably will start asking the pc for withholds. ~That's~ a 
mistake. You ask the pc for ~Missed Withholds~. Why stir up new ones to 
be missed when you haven't cleaned up those ~already missed~? Instead 
of putting out the fire we pour on gunpowder. Why find more you can 
~then~ miss when you haven't found those that ~have been~ missed."

--
Ted

Wed Apr 27 17:25:11 EDT 2005