The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

oh my god, whoa.

I never said that.

(I actually stopped really reading here a few weeks ago since CM-BS was posting a lot. And I just take a look every now and then and don't want to respond to CM-BS, new decision as of late)

Can you show where I said that? that I just look for key words?

I don't even know how to do that. I just post off the cuff.

It was about a month ago. It was 3 or 4 days after Hell of a Hoax posted here when we were discussing Hubbard's Obnosis drill. I was not very impressed with the drill. To me, it was designed to train one not to assume anything but to be certain of only the things one could actually see. That benefit could be very important but just reading the drill and working with it in a group for 20 - 30 minutes was all the training which was needed to master the drill. Any half sane person could apply the drill at that point. Nevertheless, sometimes when we staff screwed up we were sent back to study and redo the Obnonsis drill. I thought that was overkill.

You opposed me on the Obnosis Drill and it seemed to me that you got Hell of a Hoax to come over here to back you up. He came here and blasted me for saying that I liked the Obnosis drill. It was clear to me that he had not read my post.

At that point, I took great pains to explain to you in great detail that I did not think that highly of the Obnosis Drill. You responded quickly and criticized me again for being an admirer of the Obnosis Drill even though I had just explained to you that I did not really like the drill all that much. At that point, I realized that you did not actually read my posts. You automatically assummed that I was against you and then you just "cherry picked" my posts, looking for key words to criticize.

I then put the question to you. I wrote that I had figured out that you were not reading my posts but just scanning for key words on which to base your argument. You replied immediately. I don't recall exactly what you said but I can paraphrase it pretty closely as follows.

These four points summarize the essence of your reply to me, of that I am certain:
!. You didn't read my posts.
2. You and some friends did scan them for key words.
3. You didn't care for my writing style, it was too ponderous and my posts were too long, so the best you could do was to only do a quick scan for key words.
4. You didn't spend a lot of time writing your replies. You replied quickly in your own writing style.

I'm not going to waste my time looking it up for you. If you want to find it, maybe do a search on this thread for the Obnosis Drill. I find it scary that you admitted to scanning for key words and cherry picking them out of my posts and you don't remember that you wrote that, only about a month ago.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It was about a month ago. It was 3 or 4 days after Hell of a Hoax posted here when we were discussing Hubbard's Obnosis drill.

I was not very impressed with the drill. To me, it was designed to train one not to assume anything but to be certain of only the things one could actually see. That benefit could be very important but just reading the drill and working with it in a group for 20 - 30 minutes was all the training which was needed to master the drill. Any half sane person could apply the drill at that point. Nevertheless, sometimes when we staff screwed up we were sent back to study and redo the Obnonsis drill. I thought that was overkill.

You opposed me on the Obnosis Drill and it seemed to me that you got Hell of a Hoax to come over here to back you up. He came here and blasted me for saying that I liked the Obnosis drill. It was clear to me that he had not read my post.

At that point, I took great pains to explain to you in great detail that I did not think that highly of the Obnosis Drill. You responded quickly and criticized me again for being an admirer of the Obnosis Drill even though I had just explained to you that I did not really like the drill all that much. At that point, I realized that you did not actually read my posts. You automatically assummed that I was against you and then you just "cherry picked" my posts, looking for key words to criticize.

I then put the question to you. I wrote that I had figured out that you were not reading my posts but just scanning for key words on which to base your argument. You replied immediately. I don't recall exactly what you said but I can paraphrase it pretty closely as follows.

These four points summarize the essence of your reply to me, of that I am certain:
!. You didn't read my posts.
2. You and some friends did scan them for key words.
3. You didn't care for my writing style, it was too ponderous and my posts were too long, so the best you could do was to only do a quick scan for key words.
4. You didn't spend a lot of time writing your replies. You replied quickly in your own writing style.

I'm not going to waste my time looking it up for you. If you want to find it, maybe do a search on this thread for the Obnosis Drill. I find it scary that you admitted to scanning for key words and cherry picking them out of my posts and you don't remember that you wrote that, only about a month ago.
Lakey

That doesn't sound too hard to look for, it's your tread.........

now you are asking me to prove what I did not say,

when now you are saying it's a waste of your time.

Dude,

just answer the question. What post did I say I scan for key words? :confused2:

I never said I scan for key words. So prove I said that with an exact post where I said that.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That doesn't sound too hard to look for, it's your tread.........

now you are asking me to prove what I did not say,

when now you are saying it's a waste of your time.

Dude,

just answer the question. What post did I say I scan for key words? :confused2:

I never said I scan for key words. So prove I said that with an exact post where I said that.

I suggested to you whether you scanned my post for key words and you replied that you did it. In that sense, I initially said it and but you agreed and commented on how lousy my writing style was and all the other stuff which I paraphrased. You don't even remember what you said but I am positive that you said it. Several times after the post where you admitted it, I mentioned that you and possibly Gizmo were doing that and you never objected. Now, after a few weeks absense, you show up here and claim that you never said it but I remember it very clearly.

Why am I supposed to waste my time searching for something which I already am certain exists? We'll see, it is really no big deal to me one way or the other but on this one, I am not 99% certain but am 100% sure that on this.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I suggested to you whether you scanned my post for key words and you replied that you did it. In that sense, I initially said it and but you agreed and commented on how lousy my writing style was and all the other stuff which I paraphrased. You don't even remember what you said but I am positive that you said it. Several times after the post where you admitted it, I mentioned that you and possibly Gizmo were doing that and you never objected. Now, after a few weeks absense, you show up here and claim that you never said it but I remember it very clearly.

Why am I supposed to waste my time searching for something which I already am certain exists? We'll see, it is really no big deal to me one way or the other but on this one, I am not 99% certain but am 100% sure that on this.
Lakey

I decided to take a look on the thread and found one of my posts, Post #19943 on Page 1995 of the thread. The post is the 3rd post down from the top and is dated Dec. 12, 2014. This post is a summary of what I found to be true regarding others who were posting on the thread. There were only 4 or 5 posters who were using the practice of scanning posts without reading them and looking for key words to attack me with.

At the time of this post, I had already figured out their technique and mentioned it on the thread. None of them, including Gib, came forward to deny that they were using this technique. I'll have to go back further to find my exchange with Gib however, this post shows that I already understood their technique. I am providing a link to page 1995 so go there, scroll down 2 posts and then read my Post #19945. Here is the link:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10103-The-old-days-Aboard-the-Apollo-1973/page1995

I will say that since Dec 12, 2014, nearly 2 months ago, the relationship between me and those posters has improved markedly. We seem to have found more common ground and there has been no bashing taking place. I sure hope that this trend continues. In the meantime, I will search further to find my interchange with Gib.

After writing the above I just went back and searched some more and ended up on Page 1994 of the thread, the last two posts on that page are by Gib, They are Posts 19939 and 19940. These two posts are right in the heart of my discussion with Gib. Just before that, I tell Gib and Gizmo that I believe that Gib is scanning my posts and picking out key words to criticize me. A couple of posts later there are posts 19939 and 19940, both by Gib but both posts are deleted. I went from there up to present time and the posts where Gib admits to the scanning do not appear. I remember that he admitted to the scanning technique at just about that exact time.

The bottom line is that either my memory is faulty and he never admitted to using the scanning technique or that he mentioned the technique in those two posts but later came back and erased them. I'll let the readers of the thread decide on what they think is the truth.

Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gib, I most likely said I skim posts by Lakey - if I read them at all.

Seems to me he still tries all too often to explain the world & life through Hubbard's view. I don't read Hubbard rubbish these days.

If Lakey wants to see my suggesting a different view of some point as arguing with him, well, so be it - he gets to choose how he sees things.

I pretty much gave up on him back when I replied ' Thank you for telling me that " to some post or other of his.

Like some other posters, I sort of scan his posts & pretty much don't post unless to correct his inaccurate "reporting" of facts in regards to the actual history of - and in - scientology.

Otherwise, I just post now & again out of boredom.

This thread had gotten to pretty much Lakey & Bird exchanging posts ( of course, with the many thousands upon thousands of daily page hits adding to the "stat" ) and that seems comfortable to most.

Now watch Lakey somehow construe this post as arguing with & confrontational .

If I was concerned, given his recent posts I'd worry about his recent shift in his apparent mental health.

Added : I think next time when I have a few moments to burn that I'll go play Candy Crush over in Facebook instead of playing on this thread.

That game has merit.

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I decided to take a look on the thread and found one of my posts, Post #19943 on Page 1995 of the thread. The post is the 3rd post down from the top and is dated Dec. 12, 2014. This post is a summary of what I found to be true regarding others who were posting on the thread. There were only 4 or 5 posters who were using the practice of scanning posts without reading them and looking for key words to attack me with.

At the time of this post, I had already figured out their technique and mentioned it on the thread. None of them, including Gib, came forward to deny that they were using this technique. I'll have to go back further to find my exchange with Gib however, this post shows that I already understood their technique. I am providing a link to page 1995 so go there, scroll down 2 posts and then read my Post #19945. Here is the link:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10103-The-old-days-Aboard-the-Apollo-1973/page1995

I will say that since Dec 12, 2014, nearly 2 months ago, the relationship between me and those posters has improved markedly. We seem to have found more common ground and there has been no bashing taking place. I sure hope that this trend continues. In the meantime, I will search further to find my interchange with Gib.

After writing the above I just went back and searched some more and ended up on Page 1994 of the thread, the last two posts on that page are by Gib, They are Posts 19939 and 19940. These two posts are right in the heart of my discussion with Gib. Just before that, I tell Gib and Gizmo that I believe that Gib is scanning my posts and picking out key words to criticize me. A couple of posts later there are posts 19939 and 19940, both by Gib but both posts are deleted. I went from there up to present time and the posts where Gib admits to the scanning do not appear. I remember that he admitted to the scanning technique at just about that exact time.

The bottom line is that either my memory is faulty and he never admitted to using the scanning technique or that he mentioned the technique in those two posts but later came back and erased them. I'll let the readers of the thread decide on what they think is the truth.

Lakey

those two deleted posts were something I was going to say to CBS but decided I did not want to get into it, nor here his responses.

And at the same time I decided I did not want to further communicate to you or CBS.

1. I don't scan for keys words.
2. I never said your posts were too long or bad or anything like that.
3. I enjoyed your tread but I am not wanting to post here anymore.
4. I'm glad you told your story in scientology, I think it is very helpful.
5. I know where you stand with the tech, great, no problem.
6. I don't bash you, I bash the tech.

If you are gonna say something about my posts, make sure it is stated correctly with no dub-in.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

those two deleted posts were something I was going to say to CBS but decided I did not want to get into it, nor here his responses.

And at the same time I decided I did not want to further communicate to you or CBS.

1. I don't scan for keys words.
2. I never said your posts were too long or bad or anything like that.
3. I enjoyed your tread but I am not wanting to post here anymore.
4. I'm glad you told your story in scientology, I think it is very helpful.
5. I know where you stand with the tech, great, no problem.
6. I don't bash you, I bash the tech.

If you are gonna say something about my posts, make sure it is stated correctly with no dub-in.

You sure do ask a lot of a fella ! ROFL !

Look, after attesting to reading - and understanding - every word of every post & assurances you did so with dictionary, demo kit & clay to hand THEN you respond - using appropriate terms - by agreeing with the Master of the Thread.

It really would be highly inappropriate to not fully understand every word of every post - to do less would be highly out tech & most unacceptable around these parts !

Maybe you want to join me in a game of Candy Crush ?

We could start our own thread on the history of Voodoo on river boats in New Orleans !

We could make shit up as we went along & hope nobody showed up that was really there & really knew the truth about it !

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It was about a month ago. It was 3 or 4 days after Hell of a Hoax posted here when we were discussing Hubbard's Obnosis drill. I was not very impressed with the drill. To me, it was designed to train one not to assume anything but to be certain of only the things one could actually see. That benefit could be very important but just reading the drill and working with it in a group for 20 - 30 minutes was all the training which was needed to master the drill. Any half sane person could apply the drill at that point. Nevertheless, sometimes when we staff screwed up we were sent back to study and redo the Obnonsis drill. I thought that was overkill.

You opposed me on the Obnosis Drill and it seemed to me that you got Hell of a Hoax to come over here to back you up. He came here and blasted me for saying that I liked the Obnosis drill. It was clear to me that he had not read my post.

At that point, I took great pains to explain to you in great detail that I did not think that highly of the Obnosis Drill. You responded quickly and criticized me again for being an admirer of the Obnosis Drill even though I had just explained to you that I did not really like the drill all that much. At that point, I realized that you did not actually read my posts. You automatically assummed that I was against you and then you just "cherry picked" my posts, looking for key words to criticize.

I then put the question to you. I wrote that I had figured out that you were not reading my posts but just scanning for key words on which to base your argument. You replied immediately. I don't recall exactly what you said but I can paraphrase it pretty closely as follows.

These four points summarize the essence of your reply to me, of that I am certain:
!. You didn't read my posts.
2. You and some friends did scan them for key words.
3. You didn't care for my writing style, it was too ponderous and my posts were too long, so the best you could do was to only do a quick scan for key words.
4. You didn't spend a lot of time writing your replies. You replied quickly in your own writing style.

I'm not going to waste my time looking it up for you. If you want to find it, maybe do a search on this thread for the Obnosis Drill. I find it scary that you admitted to scanning for key words and cherry picking them out of my posts and you don't remember that you wrote that, only about a month ago.
Lakey

i liked obnosis

and if you will recall, heinlein was so impressed with the idea he put it SIASL with the fair witness order

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I agree with you but I would like to add one things which you have not mentioned. I am talking about the element of time. If you catch an illness early, then auditing or perhaps other forms of mental therapy all have a chance of achieving a cure. This is particularly true in the case of cancers, such as breast cancer. A women sees something on her breast which is a bit threatening, she makes an appointment with her doctor ASAP. The doctor tells her, she caught a tumor very early and with the correct treatment she can be cured.

If you ignore that little lump on the breast until it gets worse and go see your doctor 6 months or a year later, as many have, it is too late. No kind of therapy is going to stop a cancer which has got outside of a small local area and makes a bee line for one's lymph glands and vital organs. If it gets to that stage, neither medicine nor mental therapy can stop it.

The secret is to have regular check ups with your Doctor and/or if you see something which looks suspicious, get your ass into the doctor's office and get a battery of tests to see if you have something serious and life threatening. If you are enjoying your life and want to live a long life, regular medical check ups are a must. It is a mandatory survival point!!!
Lakey

yes...

i guess you missed when i was speaking of the cancer research i did when my best pal died of cancer...

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

i liked obnosis

and if you will recall, heinlein was so impressed with the idea he put it SIASL with the fair witness order

I recently discussed the Obnosis Drill with Purple Haze. She thinks that the ability to look and see what is there and only what is there is a MAJOR ability. I mentioned to her that when a student did that drill, if they were looking at a person from a side view and they said that he had 2 ears, they were immediately flunked. She was very surprised at that and could hardly believe it.

She said that she would say that the person had 2 ears because not all looking was done with the eyes. In other words, she was claiming that she had enough perceptive abilities to look at whether or not a person had an ear on the other side of his head without looking directly with one's eyes. I countered that if she had done that in class while doing the drill, she would have been flunked. She was surprised that a person would be flunked if they assumed a second ear existed without looking at it with one's eyes.

The Scio Tech Dictionary defines Obnosis as follows: 1. "the observation of the obvious"; the ability to look at the obvious. 2. "This is a coined (invented) word meaning observing the obvious..." The Tech Dictionary does not have an entry for the word "look" so the English definition of 'look" may be used. The definition of look tends to say "to turn one's eyes on something" to see what is there. If you take a blind person, they don't have the ability to turn their eyes on something to see it but they could use their other sense, such as touch, to determine if it is there.

For a Scientologist or an ex Scio who believes that the tech works, many of these people consider that they have "OT" abilities. With "OT" abilities, a person will claim to be able to look without using the eyes of their body. Probably their should be two Obnosis drills, just the regular Obnosis drill and another drill called OT Obnosis. There is a precedent with the TR0 dril, there is both regular TR0 and OT TR0.

Since there is only 1 Obnosis drill and no official OT Obnosis drill, Purple Haze should be flunked even if she can perceive things without the aid of her eyes. It would be a shame to flunk someone if they were able to do the drill without using their eyes.

You know, OT Obnosis requires OT "abilities". That could be a new OT level, call it OT 9. After someone completes OT 8, they have long been promised that when certain conditions are met, OT 9 will be brought out but current think on the subject out in the field is that no OT 9 level, written up by Hubbard, has ever existed. Being able to observe the obvious without using one eyes would really be a great OT level. I don't know if it is possible to train people to be able to do that.

The ability to perceive without using one's eyes seems to lie latent in many people. People have that ability to a varying extent. Most people have zero ability in that area while mystics, psychics, sceintolgists and perhaps others may have a vestige of that ability available to them. If someone could provide drills which would enhance that ability, that could be called OT 9 in scientology while mystics, metaphysicists and others might call it direct viewing. If that ability does exist and can be developed with training, that would almost be a proof of the existence of a spirit. That would be a big "if", but I would not rule it out of the realm of possibility.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You sure do ask a lot of a fella ! ROFL !

Look, after attesting to reading - and understanding - every word of every post & assurances you did so with dictionary, demo kit & clay to hand THEN you respond - using appropriate terms - by agreeing with the Master of the Thread.

It really would be highly inappropriate to not fully understand every word of every post - to do less would be highly out tech & most unacceptable around these parts !

Maybe you want to join me in a game of Candy Crush ?

We could start our own thread on the history of Voodoo on river boats in New Orleans !

We could make shit up as we went along & hope nobody showed up that was really there & really knew the truth about it !

see post 20190, only a few posts back. LOL OT Obnosis drills, LOL

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-Apollo-1973&p=1002368&viewfull=1#post1002368

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Obnosis drills only work when one views all life through Hubbard's perspective of life.

I really get that is that is all the perspective of life some can see is through Hubbard - again, so be it.

Some people have invested so much of their life & their money in believing in Hubbard hisself that their HAS to be some RIGHTNESS in what they believed so deeply.

Hey. one day truth will prevail & those still so deeply imbued with the Hubbard think ( Although some here think that their physical ass of of scn means their head & heart are out of scn when it really isn't ) will return to thinking for themselves.

It is an internal agony that is hard to watch play out on these boards - but it will.

Meanwhile, watch the slow but painful evolution of or friends to freedom.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Obnosis drills only work when one views all life through Hubbard's perspective of life.

I really get that is that is all the perspective of life some can see is through Hubbard - again, so be it.

Some people have invested so much of their life & their money in believing in Hubbard hisself that their HAS to be some RIGHTNESS in what they believed so deeply.

Hey. one day truth will prevail & those still so deeply imbued with the Hubbard think ( Although some here think that their physical ass of of scn means their head & heart are out of scn when it really isn't ) will return to thinking for themselves.

It is an internal agony that is hard to watch play out on these boards - but it will.

Meanwhile, watch the slow but painful evolution of or friends to freedom.

Why is a bicycle like an orange? It is roller and an orange is round so it rolls too.

Furthermore, perspective is like a periscope on a sub, the bending of the tube creates different views on a target.

Discussion boards will play out by promoting the wrong periscope but painful evolution of friends and enemies will insure that those with sleeves who are rollers will eventually prevail.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

see post 20190, only a few posts back. LOL OT Obnosis drills, LOL

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-Apollo-1973&p=1002368&viewfull=1#post1002368

Obnosis drills only work when one views all life through Hubbard's perspective of life.

I really get that is that is all the perspective of life some can see is through Hubbard - again, so be it.

Some people have invested so much of their life & their money in believing in Hubbard hisself that their HAS to be some RIGHTNESS in what they believed so deeply.

Hey. one day truth will prevail & those still so deeply imbued with the Hubbard think ( Although some here think that their physical ass of of scn means their head & heart are out of scn when it really isn't ) will return to thinking for themselves.

It is an internal agony that is hard to watch play out on these boards - but it will.

Meanwhile, watch the slow but painful evolution of or friends to freedom.

IMHO...

The "observation" of the "obvious" is COMPLETELY predicated, modified, influenced, determined, etc, etc, etc, etc by...

1) The clarity, acuity, functionality, interpretation, etc, etc, etc of the individual's physical senses.

2) The past experience, capability, inquiry, education, etc, etc, etc of the individual's thought and reasoning process.

3) The emotional, physical, mental etc, etc, etc extent of the individual's maturity.

4) The current extant mathematical, mechanical, practical, historical, etc, etc, etc, etc general fund of common and "cultural" and/or particular/unique knowledge the individual knows, understands, remembers and has been exposed to.

5) The momentary mood, conditions, environment, etc, etc, etc the individual is currently in augmented by the individual's personal capability to function within those transient parameters.

6) The indoctrination of inculcated ideas, answers, solutions, biases, etc, etc, etc, etc the individual has received, adopted, accepted and uses as a template, filter, abacus and de facto "talisman" (which is, also, El Ron's "OBNOSIS").

Face

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't know about that, your items 1 through 6.

IMHO, those items are what the Obnosis Drill is attempting to get rid of. WITHOUT the Obnosis Drill, all those items are active and if a room with 10 people are asked to look at a person sitting in the fromt of the room and describe him, you would likely get 10 different descriptions, all colored by those 6 items which you list.

USING the Obnosis drill, it is designed to prohibit those items from coloring each person's observations. Theoretically, if all 10 people were sitting at the same viewpoint, the descriptions which they give should all be in alignment and agree. In actual practice, people view from different locations and angles so one person might see only one ear while someone else may see two ears or someone may see a scar which others do not see.

Now, besides viewpoint, there are two other variables in that each of the 10 observers can choose which items they want to describe and also the condition of the 10 observers organs of perception are not all equal. There is a list of things which the observers would see such as hair style, hair color, wearing glasses, nose shape, ear shape, scars, tatoos, teeth, clothing, etc.

Maybe I am missing something but the way I see it, the template which one looks through while doing the drill would not be the enormous template as stated in your post but it would be a much smaller template made up of the following:

1. The viewpoint from which each observer is observing.
2. The items which one chooses to look at and describe
3. The accuracy of an observers organs of perception (i.e. if an observer is near sighted or color blind, his results would be skewed)

It's a pretty simple drill and the results from 10 different observers who have mastered the drill should be somewhat similar, colored by only my items 1-3. If that is not the case, then one or more observers would have to be flunked for not doing the drill correctly. If any of your items 1 - 6 entered into one's observations, that would be a Flunk.

I never thought much of the drill, myself, but when Helluva came here to post in early December, he had been told that I was promoting the drill as a valid example of Hubbard tech which works. That was not the case at all. That's how I first suspected that Gib, Gizmo and a couple of others might be skimming my posts without actually reading them for comprehension. They see that I mention Obnosis and they tell Helluva that I am promoting it when actually I wrote that I did not think it had much value.

When Purple Haze got back in town, I told her about this episode and she said that in her opinion, the Obnosis Drill was a very important and useful drill.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

THE MERITS OF A GOOD DISCUSSION WEB SITE

For a Discussion Board to be useful, it is my belief that when reading the posts of others, one must read for comprehension and understanding. You adopt the maxim that in order to gain wisdom you must first know that you don't know it all.

WHAT I OBJECT TO IN POSTING

What many posters on ESMB and other Chat Boards do is start out believing that they know best before they even look at the other person's post. They then skim his post, sort of looking for keywords to see whether or not the other person agrees with them. There is no effort whatsoever made to duplicate and comprehend what the other person is saying. Their thinking is that there is no need to comprehend the other person's post since they already have the correct understanding. Therefore, their only question is, "Does the other person agree with me or not?"

If the other person agrees, fine, they participate in chats and joke around with their "good old boy" but if (IN THEIR EYES) the other person does not share FULLY their exact beliefs, all hell breaks loose. They and several of their pals engage in a concerted effort to trash the other person.

They claim that they are trashing what he is saying and not the person himself and to a partial extent that may be true but it is never 100% true. Tempers flare up and tend to lead to insults when two or more parties do not agree on a topic. Once tempers are stirred up then it is natural for a detractor to reason that his opponent is no good anyway, he is always wrong and he is promoting some very harmful techniques and practices to the general public. He may finally reason that the best way to stop him is to simply "Dead Agent" him. Show that he is messed up and discredit him personally and others will get the message and stop reading his posts.

Now, I could get on board with these tactics except for two key points:

1. Before one bashes another poster, they should actually read his posts seeking comprehension and understanding. Know fully what you disagree with before you bash it!
2. Have the attitude that you don't already know it all and actually consider very carefully what the other person is saying and see if it has any merit.

If those two items are done sincerely and you still believe the other poster is blowing smoke then go ahead and bash what he says, pointing out where he is going wrong. I have no problem with that. Doing those actions leads to chat boards where people can learn things.

However, if items 1 and 2 above are not done, then I believe the bashers can be extremely destructive. First of all, whenever someone assumes that they know everything there is to know about a topic, they become stuck and are no longer able to learn more and expand. Second, not only don't they expand but by demanding that all other posters agree with them, the entire chat board can end up stuck at their level of comprehension. In essence they can't learn anything new and they compound that by enforcing that trait on others.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<snip>
I never thought much of the drill, myself, but when Helluva came here to post in early December, he had been told that I was promoting the drill as a valid example of Hubbard tech which works. That was not the case at all. That's how I first suspected that Gib, Gizmo and a couple of others might be skimming my posts without actually reading them for comprehension. They see that I mention Obnosis and they tell Helluva that I am promoting it when actually I wrote that I did not think it had much value.

When Purple Haze got back in town, I told her about this episode and she said that in her opinion, the Obnosis Drill was a very important and useful drill.
Lakey

I don't know HH. never contacted HH. Don't feel Lakey's posts about how wonderful some scientology processes are is worth telling about about - it ain't news, ya know.

'Tis true I skim through posts that are about Hubbard rubbish or are full of Hubbard think if I wanted to read that shit I'd still be IN scientology.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

THE MERITS OF A GOOD DISCUSSION WEB SITE

For a Discussion Board to be useful, it is my belief that when reading the posts of others, one must read for comprehension and understanding. You adopt the maxim that in order to gain wisdom you must first know that you don't know it all.

WHAT I OBJECT TO IN POSTING

What many posters on ESMB and other Chat Boards do is start out believing that they know best before they even look at the other person's post. They then skim his post, sort of looking for keywords to see whether or not the other person agrees with them. There is no effort whatsoever made to duplicate and comprehend what the other person is saying. Their thinking is that there is no need to comprehend the other person's post since they already have the correct understanding. < snip of the verbiage >
Lakey

Please look in your mirror ~!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Please look in your mirror ~!

I read every post thoroughly, I never go in thinking that I know it all. I am willing to change if the other person makes better points.

I will say this, and it has to do with the English language. I come from a different time period than most of you. We were taught the 3 R's by the book. We had our slang words too but pretty much we spoke standard English. You and your buddies use a lot of slang and metaphors in your written communications and probably when your are speaking as well. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it often adds color and humor to your posts.

The down side, to tell you the truth, is that I have trouble understanding your style of English. If I don't get what your saying, I just don't get and I move on, continuing to read your post. Since I'm not totally conversant with your slang and your senses of humor, I may be missing some of the points which you are making. That is a definite possibility.
Lakey

P.S. I just heard a young kid, maybe 10 or 12 use the word, "bitchen". That was a very popular slang word when I was in grade school. It meant that something was really fine or really cool. Go back to 1948 and if a friend of mine rode over to see me on a new bike, if I liked it I would say "bitchen". I was surprised to hear that word was still in use!

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't know about that, your items 1 through 6.

IMHO, those items are what the Obnosis Drill is attempting to get rid of. WITHOUT the Obnosis Drill, all those items are active and if a room with 10 people are asked to look at a person sitting in the fromt of the room and describe him, you would likely get 10 different descriptions, all colored by those 6 items which you list.

USING the Obnosis drill, it is designed to prohibit those items from coloring each person's observations. Theoretically, if all 10 people were sitting at the same viewpoint, the descriptions which they give should all be in alignment and agree. In actual practice, people view from different locations and angles so one person might see only one ear while someone else may see two ears or someone may see a scar which others do not see.

Now, besides viewpoint, there are two other variables in that each of the 10 observers can choose which items they want to describe and also the condition of the 10 observers organs of perception are not all equal. There is a list of things which the observers would see such as hair style, hair color, wearing glasses, nose shape, ear shape, scars, tatoos, teeth, clothing, etc.

Maybe I am missing something but the way I see it, the template which one looks through while doing the drill would not be the enormous template as stated in your post but it would be a much smaller template made up of the following:

1. The viewpoint from which each observer is observing.
2. The items which one chooses to look at and describe
3. The accuracy of an observers organs of perception (i.e. if an observer is near sighted or color blind, his results would be skewed)

It's a pretty simple drill and the results from 10 different observers who have mastered the drill should be somewhat similar, colored by only my items 1-3. If that is not the case, then one or more observers would have to be flunked for not doing the drill correctly. If any of your items 1 - 6 entered into one's observations, that would be a Flunk.

I never thought much of the drill, myself, but when Helluva came here to post in early December, he had been told that I was promoting the drill as a valid example of Hubbard tech which works. That was not the case at all.

That's how I first suspected that Gib, Gizmo and a couple of others might be skimming my posts without actually reading them for comprehension.

They see that I mention Obnosis and they tell Helluva that I am promoting it when actually I wrote that I did not think it had much value.

When Purple Haze got back in town, I told her about this episode and she said that in her opinion, the Obnosis Drill was a very important and useful drill.
Lakey

Lakey,

there is something you missed in Face's post.

Go back and look at it, look at the two things Face highlighted in red, connect the dots when reading the body of what he wrote keeping in mind the red highlighted words.

And would you please stop saying I, Gib, skim your posts, that is dub in. You have mentioned this a few times now. I'm getting angry, REAL ANGRY. (lol, don't take me saying I'm angry seriously).