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

[lkwdblds]

Brilliant analysis

Sowell's take on the issue is that there are two competing "visions". The "constrained" vision (dominant on the right) looks at the world as involving trade-offs, where pleasing A will make B unhappy. The "unconstrained" vision (dominant on the left) looks at the world as having "problems" which have "solutions", a solution being defined as a course of action which will make everybody (or at least most people) happy.

The constrained vision also holds that it is impossiible for "societal planners" to have enough information or enough wisdom to actually plan a society, and that things work better when there are definite, predictable rules to delimit the areas of discretion of individuals, and for individuals to make their own decisions on their goals and how to get there. Meanwhile, the unconstrained vision holds that there exist people wise enough and ethical enough to be trusted with the power to plan the lives of the masses.

Looking at this, I come to the conclusion that LRH was firmly of the latter viewpoint. However much LRH railed against "communists", his only real objection to them was that HE was not in charge. In his own domain, he set up a communist dictatorship as rigid, as top-down, and as dysfunctional as any of them. He had his own gulag system, and I think the only thing that prevented a "Killing Fields" scenario was that he never succeeded in taking over his own sovereign country.

Enthetan - Brilliant post by both Tom Sowell for summarizing this data so succinctly. This is an area of endless yapping and name calling and debate and yet I find Sowell's summary says it all accurately and concisely. In my humble opinion, you also show brilliance in recognizing Sowell's brilliance and summarizing what he has to say in a lucid manner plus introducing the parallels to Hubbard's way of thinking. Both Hubbard and the unconstrained progressive faction simply can not tell the truth and allow people to know that they feel that they are the only ones worthy or enlightened enough to "call the shots" for all of us, therefore, Hubbard and progressives must live by lies and through "shore stories". A conservative usually is truthful and is more able to tell it like it is. Do you want someone like Michael Moore the film maker to be calling the shots for the way you live your life?
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

Flattery will get you everywhere

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Killing fields

I hate to say, while not on a massive scale, Corporate Scientology has left more than it's share of bodies behind... If we look at killing minds and spirits, well...even more damage for society to repair. Make the able more able, hah! Make the able disabled, is more like it...

Enthetan, fantastically good post! You're going onto Golden Quotes!

Do you like spaghetti?

 

[Leon]

Looks like you have a winner here. Roger! Very well Done indeed.


Leon

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Sorry for the delay, CarmeloO, my Friend. Lots of traffic on my lines. Questions from a reader of the book, request for help from another quarter . . . info exchanges.

Shit, I suddenly need two of me. My flunk is I never learned to touch-type . . . and there is still a little of the hunt and peck in me, even after nearly 20 years of wrestling with a keyboard.

So, CarmeloO, the suggestion

Strikes me you have a Danger Condition present, in your view certainly.

Danger Conditions are not always nor are necessarily monster situations one has to stamp in with guns blazing to handle.

And it certainly is likely to be a delicate, if not difficult, thing to work a correction of this scene via the parents.

So, a thought. I would assume you are held in a position of some respect and honor by your grandchildren, no?

This is what happened to me when I was a youngster.

My mother's sister married a Pommie (that's and Englishman in Ozzie parlance) but he was a good Pommie, a regular kind of guy who did not try to look down on the Ozzie types as many silly Poms did.

Uncle Roy was actually a gentleman, a fun loving fellow who thought a lot of me and my sister. He had no children himself. He used to take me out into the Pacific, 5-10 miles out onto the continental shelf to go deep sea fishing off of Bondi beach (there was a little sheltered spot tucked in on Ben Buckler Point at the north end of the beach where our 12 foot rowboat with outboard engine on the back could be pulled up and stored when not in use)

You see, Uncle Roy didn't know it, but in essence he was doing a by-pass of my father on some things in the educating of me into some of the things my father wasn't into.

Looking back, I now see it as a rather remarkable and interesting thing.

He seemed to certainly see things that my dad did not, and this because they each had come from totally different backgrounds and saw things from quite different perspectives. Roy was a businessman. My father a skilled craftsman/tradesman.

Roy dealt with people . . . businessmen and executives do that. Tradesmen and craftsmen deal more with things. My father had run away to sea from school at age 14, and made no secret of the fact that he was a total flunk when it came to mathematics.

Notwithstanding, my father was a wonderful parent, truly wonderful; and he set great standards for me to emulate.

But Roy saw a different perspective of life, and he, in his quite way exposed me to other things and thoughts that influenced me deeply.

Like a more correct pronunciation in my speaking . . . and he gave me the reasons why it would be important to me! He never invalidated my parents in doing this . . . it was simply presented as additional information and valuable knowledge I could use if I was wise enough to choose to He was rather subtle, I'll give him that!

But he did me wonders, and gave me great benefits.

Another trick he pulled (I'll only cite these few of many) he suggested that if I wanted to be "literate" and well read and "able to get along in the world" (and he was always clever enough to give me the reason it was in my interest to pursue his advice) then I should read "Reader's Digest" each month, and also use the section that dealt with "Word Power" each month.

"It's always good to develop your vocabulary," he said to me. "It helps you understand what's going on in life."

Well bless Uncle Roy's heart, for my dad didn't come up with these little nuances in the playing of the game of life . . . he had his other wonderful values to pass on; and valuable they were as well.

So, the lesson I learned from all this history when I reviewed it many years later as I was writing the book, is that my Dear Old Uncle Roy was unwittingly doing a by-pass of what he saw as a danger to my well being and future based on the aspects of the Oz culture I was exposed to with my parents.

Though I do not forgive him for screwing up my game of golf . . . he was an avid golfer. He took me out with him and one of his buddies once, and when we were out of sight of the clubhouse, gave me a two-iron and putter. Well, at age about 13, I banged away at something like nine or ten holes and actually managed it in 1 or 2 over par! To me, as an athletic type kid, it was obvious: this is how you do it!

He was amazed, and decided to coach me . . . even though my score sort of matched or surpassed his Now this fun, natural thing to do became serious! He was giving me so many things to be careful of, to remember to do, the zillion how to's . . .

The result was that my natural fluid swing totally seized up! Man, did things suddenly go wrong! Golf then became a miserable, meaningless, boring, even unpleasant game to me!

Ahh, the trials and tribulations of growing up

Anyway, the only advice I can come up with in your circumstance is to apply a subtle, discreet, Power Formula in the area . . . By-pass and handle. The rest of it I'll leave to your good judgment . . . which I know you have

RogerB

Your suggestions ring true.

Bringinging theory to life with a story always makes something much more real than just dry theory. Illustrating and ramifying points made brings a clear vision to what was mud.

Thanks for the display of your educational genius.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

You seem to be very competent and I feel a bit silly offering you suggestions, but since you asked. . . .

I get the idea that if the momma changed a few of her ideas, then the kids would stand a better chance of learning what they need to. So it would come down to changing her mind some. Is she auditable, not necessarily using straight Scn? On anything? Like first getting some charge off on what is bugging her most, whether related or not?

Paul

Paul,
We're in the process of upgrading our daughter in law's life. It's an all hands project. Our daughter is providing impetus to clean sort toss and upgrade he children's rooms. Lots of useless drek is getting tossed. It is not an enforced reality but a co created clean up.

The daughter in law is on meds to keep her spending in check.

It would be nice to get her in session. We'll just have to see.

Obviously changing any side of an equation changes the other side too.

 

[RogerB]

Looks like you have a winner here. Roger! Very well Done indeed.


Leon

Thanks, old friend. The sales are building up and I've not had time to devote to marketing . . . . seems like the search engines of the internet are my friend!

PS: I do owe you a response to your last post on my Pasadena presentation . . . . it deserves thought

Rog

 

[RogerB]

Your suggestions ring true.

Bringinging theory to life with a story always makes something much more real than just dry theory. Illustrating and ramifying points made brings a clear vision to what was mud.

Thanks for the display of your educational genius.

I'm told I have a "turn of phrase"

I had a wonderful childhood, of which I have many pleasurable experiences remembered, and these have become my lessons in life that I pass onto others for their benefit.

It is interesting though, I never saw my Uncle Roy's action as a subtle physical universe by-pass and actual handle of a "danger condition" till you asked your question. That brought to my mind a solution for you that I had benefited from and which I was able to "interpret" or analyze in the context of the tech we have.

By the way, you might try some Ho' Opononpono (Alan C W posted it on ESMB) Thread by that name.

I actually ran it on him, back in June . . . as you know, he and I have had our, err, umm, "collisions of spirit"

He PM'ed me, "I felt the shift!"

It is a powerful process. You don't have to be with the person physically . . . Alan and I were a couple of thousand miles apart when I ran it on/for him.

You have three terminals involved: both parents, and the child. I would run the process on each individually, and you could also try it on "them as a group" . . . . what you have there is a a group fused "reality," no?

Now howzat for an idea!?!

Rog

 

[lkwdblds]

Don't kowtow to me. Fight for your beliefs!

Oooooh, cranky! Just 'cause I haven't given YOU a nickname yet...
I think you need to go dancing to feel better...

All right, a spaghetti dinner would be lovely, just with the companionship and conversation...I will probably spend more for gas than on the meal...:confused2:

Sigh...Purple Hazy and I will dance in the kitchen with the staff. If nobody loves us! D)

We may take pity on you and bestow you with the honor of dancing with you. Your stars will have to be in proper alignment and your stats will have to be up to bring this off. That's the least we can do to reward you for driving in from Timbukto. Can you bring us some artifacts from your part of the world? .

Lakey, I am hiding my progressive light under a bushel on this thread, for the sake of inter-poster harmony! But in real life, you can't scare me with talk of liberal judges! I lived through the 60's and 70's here!

Don't you dare hide you beliefs to preserve any real or imagined inter-poster harmony? You. of all people, should not have to be reminded of this salient fact. We are "ex" Scios not current Scios. We allow people with other viewpoints to express their views and we listen and seriously weigh what they have to say. Don't be intimidated by the Lakey valence, Uncle Lakey wants you to have your own beliefs and stand up for them as you do 99% of the time, don't back off 1% of the time to kowtow to me. BTW, I don't think I've ever used the word kowtow before and just Googled it and it means "to bend the knees and bow in a servile manner", just the perfect word for what I was trying to express. Also "salient" means outstanding, having a quality that thrusts itself into attention.

Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I'm told I have a "turn of phrase"

By the way, you might try some Ho' Opononpono (Alan C W posted it on ESMB) Thread by that name.

I actually ran it on him, back in June . . . as you know, he and I have had our, err, umm, "collisions of spirit"

He PM'ed me, "I felt the shift!"

It is a powerful process. You don't have to be with the person physically . . . Alan and I were a couple of thousand miles apart when I ran it on/for him.

You have three terminals involved: both parents, and the child. I would run the process on each individually, and you could also try it on "them as a group" . . . . what you have there is a a group fused "reality," no?

Now howzat for an idea!?!

Rog

We shall try that. May try it on Alan too. He could be cranky.

 

[Enthetan]

I hate to say, while not on a massive scale, Corporate Scientology has left more than it's share of bodies behind... If we look at killing minds and spirits, well...even more damage for society to repair. Make the able more able, hah! Make the able disabled, is more like it...

Enthetan, fantastically good post! You're going onto Golden Quotes!

Do you like spaghetti?

As a matter of fact, I do like spaghetti.

I like the phrase "Make the able disabled", because it accurately describes what goes on. Scientology does NOT want people who are able to hold their own position in the face of pressure and intimidation, and does all it can to crush such tendencies, or get rid of such people before they can become a "bad influence" over others. What they want in public are people who are fully subservient to the staff members who tell them what to buy and where to go. In staff, they want people who will obey without question the orders of those above them.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Don't you dare hide you beliefs to preserve any real or imagined inter-poster harmony? You. of all people, should not have to be reminded of this salient fact. We are "ex" Scios not current Scios. We allow people with other viewpoints to express their views and we listen and seriously weigh what they have to say. Don't be intimidated by the Lakey valence, Uncle Lakey wants you to have your own beliefs and stand up for them as you do 99% of the time, don't back off 1% of the time to kowtow to me. BTW, I don't think I've ever used the word kowtow before and just Googled it and it means "to bend the knees and bow in a servile manner", just the perfect word for what I was trying to express. Also "salient" means outstanding, having a quality that thrusts itself into attention.

Lakey

On the subject of liberal vs. conservative, the lines have moved.

Back in 1964, I walked precincts for Barry Goldwater (AuH2O in 1964). I was a regular reader of William F. Buckley, Jr. I read Ayn Rand. Around 1970, I followed Karl Hess (Barry's former speechwriter) and Harry Browne to the Libertarian Party.

My politics haven't significantly changed. The Republican Party certainly has.

GW's inability to do anything more than read to a kindergarten class (while on camera), when he is told of the 911 attacks is a pretty telling indictment.

Fabricating evidence of nukes in Iran to justify an unjustifiable attack that has caused a huge drain on our economy and deaths for Iranians and US soldiers is completely Cheney and Bush responsibility. The national debt under Congressional Republican majority and Cheney / Bush went crazy. Things were a lot better under Clinton, and a House and Senate intent on clobbering him (one of the Republicans' biggest footbullets - they lost 2 Speakers of the House going after Clinton).

Just like Scientology flipped from help to greed, the Republican Party has flipped from individual rights to big government. The slogans have remained the same. The party is the antithesis of its former self.

Arnold, our Govenator, a the current two candidates to replace him, and Tom Campbell are about all that is left of the fiscally responsible Republican past.

 

[lkwdblds]

A Difference Between Hubbard and DM

As a matter of fact, I do like spaghetti.

I like the phrase "Make the able disabled", because it accurately describes what goes on. Scientology does NOT want people who are able to hold their own position in the face of pressure and intimidation, and does all it can to crush such tendencies, or get rid of such people before they can become a "bad influence" over others. What they want in public are people who are fully subservient to the staff members who tell them what to buy and where to go. In staff, they want people who will obey without question the orders of those above them.

I see a fundamental difference here between the LRH Administration and the DM Administration. LRH definitely wanted the more able to join Scientology. He even wrote about it, stating that if the Orgs invested their resources training and processing the able, they would get far more value for their investment than investing a major effort to get a typical homeless guy back on his feet. The reasoning was that the person who was already able would have a bigger reach into society, know more people in general and particurlarly more influential people. They would already be opinion leaders of sorts and their opinion leader status would be enhanced and they could thus help recruit more people into Scn and expand it much faster than say a cleaned up homeless person would be able to do. This made sense to everyone on staff and in the public and our dissemination was slanted towards going after more able people to make them even more able.

The DM administration enjoys going after Celebrities because of the wealth and their already existing opinion leader status. They do not handle them with standard Scientology tech but a special brand of "Celebrity Tech". They are coddled, receive their services apart from the standard public people and get the royal treatment in many ways. Other than celebs, they want nothing to do with able people and if they find one, they want that person broken of any independent streak or set of strong morals which they hold or else quickly off loaded. The stong willed, highly principled, well spoken, able person such as many of us who post on EMSB are an anathema to the DM administration. A bunch of false charges are immediately manufactured against such people and they are excommunicated quickly.

There is an LRH Policy or Bulletin on the PTS/SP Course and it was still there in the late 90's when I did the course GAT style. LRH stated specifically that celebrities were not to be given special treatment or special handlings. DM must have had this issue canceled, I do not know, but it is totally flagrantly ignored and abused in today's C of S.

The statements of S & L and Enthetan are totally spot on and show a large distinction between LRH tech and DM tech, where DM felt it better to cut out 2 pieces of LRH tech and pursue just the opposite course. #1 Not giving Celebs special treatment and #2 Making the able not more able but "disabled". These two specific alterations illustrate at least partially how and why today's C of S is more aberated and crazier than LRH's C of S.
Lakey

 

[Blue Spirit]

Conservatives and Liberals

On the subject of liberal vs. conservative, the lines have moved.

Back in 1964, I walked precincts for Barry Goldwater (AuH2O in 1964). I was a regular reader of William F. Buckley, Jr. I read Ayn Rand. Around 1970, I followed Karl Hess (Barry's former speechwriter) and Harry Browne to the Libertarian Party.

My politics haven't significantly changed. The Republican Party certainly has.

GW's inability to do anything more than read to a kindergarten class (while on camera), when he is told of the 911 attacks is a pretty telling indictment.

Fabricating evidence of nukes in Iran to justify an unjustifiable attack that has caused a huge drain on our economy and deaths for Iranians and US soldiers is completely Cheney and Bush responsibility. The national debt under Congressional Republican majority and Cheney / Bush went crazy. Things were a lot better under Clinton, and a House and Senate intent on clobbering him (one of the Republicans' biggest footbullets - they lost 2 Speakers of the House going after Clinton).

Just like Scientology flipped from help to greed, the Republican Party has flipped from individual rights to big government. The slogans have remained the same. The party is the antithesis of its former self.

Arnold, our Govenator, a the current two candidates to replace him, and Tom Campbell are about all that is left of the fiscally responsible Republican past.

These two words are purposely misunderstood as an implant.

There are four groups, two of each, two bad and two good. The source of this knowledge is Howie Katz, circa 1980's. I used to have it in writing, but may have thrown it by dumping my political file.
Thinking of two groups causes continuous misunderstoods, quite evidentally.

I could see on Bush's face when he heard that 9-11 happened, that he clearly had pre-knowledge of that carefully arranged action.

 

[lkwdblds]

Unfortunately I agree with everything you say.

On the subject of liberal vs. conservative, the lines have moved.

Back in 1964, I walked precincts for Barry Goldwater (AuH2O in 1964). I was a regular reader of William F. Buckley, Jr. I read Ayn Rand. Around 1970, I followed Karl Hess (Barry's former speechwriter) and Harry Browne to the Libertarian Party.

My politics haven't significantly changed. The Republican Party certainly has.

GW's inability to do anything more than read to a kindergarten class (while on camera), when he is told of the 911 attacks is a pretty telling indictment.

Fabricating evidence of nukes in Iran to justify an unjustifiable attack that has caused a huge drain on our economy and deaths for Iranians and US soldiers is completely Cheney and Bush responsibility. The national debt under Congressional Republican majority and Cheney / Bush went crazy. Things were a lot better under Clinton, and a House and Senate intent on clobbering him (one of the Republicans' biggest footbullets - they lost 2 Speakers of the House going after Clinton).

Just like Scientology flipped from help to greed, the Republican Party has flipped from individual rights to big government. The slogans have remained the same. The party is the antithesis of its former self.

Arnold, our Govenator, a the current two candidates to replace him, and Tom Campbell are about all that is left of the fiscally responsible Republican past.

I grew up in a Jewish/American household, traditionally Democratic and my parents both worshiped Franklin Roosevelt. He got them out of the Great Depression, and led us to victory in WW II. To them he was almost a God and could do no wrong. I maintained the family tradition up to age 24. In 1960, in the Nixon - Kennedy race for president, I yearned with all my heart for Kennedy to win. My parents taught me that Nixon was a crook and Kennedy was so youthful looking and so suave and erudite with so much charisma, charm and style contrasted to "Tricky Dicky" who was nervous, edgy and looked like he was hiding something (maybe sitting in missed withholds?). He reminded me of a used car salesman. I was born two weeks too late to vote, Dec. 5 was my 21st birthday but one had to be born by election day, around Nov 24th or thereabouts so I just missed voting.

A girl at work, Carolyn, got me to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead". Those books convinced me to shift to being a republican just in time for the 1964 election. I backed Goldwater also but he was buried in a landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson. I would have voted for JFK against Goldwater or any other person then alive. I admired and adored JFK and thought he was the greatest. I would still vote for JFK today against most of the Republican candidates, the only person I might vote for over JFK would possibly be Reagan. JFK transcended party labels to me. By the way, his version of the Democratic Party has long ago receeded into history and the current democratic party is much much further to the left than JFK was. I feel that today's Republican party has also moved much further left and is now closer to what Kennedy stood for as a Democrat in the early 1960's than today's Democratic party.

Remember Kennedy's, "Ask not what your country can do for your, rather ask what you can do for your country." I subscribe fully to that slogan. That is no longer a Democrat slogan, Obama would not be caught dead using that slogan. The "change" he is talking about is in converting the U.S.A. into a European style country in the manner of Denmark and Sweden, not to mention Canada, which has already gone to that system and ditto for Great Britain and all the countries of the EU. Notice that all those countries de emphasize their militaries and sort of rely on the USA to provide the military to fight off any bully nations which may threaten them. If the USA converts to their system, then there will be no military force to stand up to rogue and bully nations. If a new Hitler type comes along, and there are many candidates, there will be no strong force in the world to contest him. Kennedy believed in a strong US Military presence and a strong National Identity. As powerful and poplular as he was, that may well be why he was bumped off. He had enough horsepower to prevent the EU system from taking root in the U.S.A. and with his brother Bobby likely to take office right behind him, he had to be bumped off too.

In summary, I agree with Carmelo's post totally. The current version of the Republican Party is not a valid answer to the Progressiave movement within the Democratic Party, it is more a Big Government group as well. IT CAN BE CALLED DEMOCRAT LIGHT!

Oddly enough, there is no powerful national figure at this time representing small government and traditional Republican U.S. principles. Probably the closest thing to it who is very well known is Sarah Palin, but she has something about her that tends to make one take her as a caraciture or a joke rather than as a serious stateswoman. If she could be coached and molded into a less cartoon like person, she has the charisma to lead the Republicans back away from what Bush created, i.e. Democrat Light. I don't know if Palin has the horsepower and smarts to be a serious candidate. I tend to think she does but when I say this, people tend to look at me like I am nuts. An American woman, similar in stature to Brittain's Margaret Thatcher of the Reagan years, is what the Republican party needs or if the leader is to be male, then a Reagan type figure. Neither Thatchers nor Reagans come along very often, and the same can ge said for JFK and Bobby Kennedy.

Blue Spirit, I watched that Michael Moore film showing Bush's behavior in front of the class. The question that arises for me is what is the proper response. Here is the President of the USA in front of a class of very young students receiving this horrendous news. Being President, and being before young children, he does not want to panic and act frantic until he receives more data. What is the best behavior in such a situation? I would go with the truth. "Ladies and Gentleman, an emergency just came up that demands my immediate attention. I am sorry but I am going to have to cut my appearance short here at your school and handle this Emergency. I am very sorry but you will have to excuse me." I agree that he was stupid, just sitting there looking foolish for a full 7 minutes but as to whether or not he knew in advance, to me I could not tell, one way or the other.
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

Blue Spirit, I watched that Michael Moore film showing Bush's behavior in front of the class. The question that arises for me is what is the proper response. Here is the President of the USA in front of a class of very young students receiving this horrendous news. Being President, and being before young children, he does not want to panic and act frantic until he receives more data. What is the best behavior in such a situation? I would go with the truth. "Ladies and Gentleman, an emergency just came up that demands my immediate attention. I am sorry but I am going to have to cut my appearance short here at your school and handle this Emergency. I am very sorry but you will have to excuse me." I agree that he was stupid, just sitting there looking foolish for a full 7 minutes but as to whether or not he knew in advance, to me I could not tell, one way or the other.
Lakey

In fairness to Bush, if I was in the Secret Service detail, and had just found out that a sophisticated, coordinated terrorist attack was underway, I would not want the president to go rushing out of there until I had a chance to verify that there wasn't a terrorist with an anti-tank rocket outside waiting for a shot at the president's vehicle.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

In fairness to Bush, if I was in the Secret Service detail, and had just found out that a sophisticated, coordinated terrorist attack was underway, I would not want the president to go rushing out of there until I had a chance to verify that there wasn't a terrorist with an anti-tank rocket outside waiting for a shot at the president's vehicle.

Your words are very plausible.

I had never thought that thought.

I was overcome with upset upon viewing that movie.

If anyone knew, it was Cheney. I don't think he would have included GW in his circle.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

In fairness to Bush, if I was in the Secret Service detail, and had just found out that a sophisticated, coordinated terrorist attack was underway, I would not want the president to go rushing out of there until I had a chance to verify that there wasn't a terrorist with an anti-tank rocket outside waiting for a shot at the president's vehicle.

By all means, hide him among the school children. He'll be harder to identify in case the school has been infiltrated by terrorists.

Seriously, it would have been smarter to remove him from the classroom with the kids and put him in an administrative or conference area at the school. He could have either continued his photo op there, or "coordinated the national response", away from the kids.

Oh well, the "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" never made any good decisions during their time in office, so its hardly surprising they muffed the "My Pet Goat Incident".


Mark A. Baker
p.s. I've long suspected that Cheney picked the book for the photo op as a private joke.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Chuckling to myself...

In the interest of inter-stellar harmony:

No comment.

Lovely weather we're having, isn't it?

Thanks for the encouragement, "Uncle" Lakey! Have no fear, I will stand up and share my personal opinions when and where I deem it necessary, but I don't want to natter needlessly about the past in this forum, I'm kind of focused on attaining some present time goals and creating a wonderful future, for myself and others. (Including spaghetti dinners, with or without dancing! )

 

[purple haze]

In the interest of inter-stellar harmony:

No comment.

Lovely weather we're having, isn't it? Very lovely weather today - like summertime!

Thanks for the encouragement, "Uncle" Lakey! Have no fear, I will stand up and share my personal opinions when and where I deem it necessary, but I don't want to natter needlessly about the past in this forum, I'm kind of focused on attaining some present time goals and creating a wonderful future, for myself and others. (Including spaghetti dinners, with or without dancing! )

Magnificent!