It stands alone in your universe not mine.
In the 70s and 80s I had two friends, Eli and Clay. They were married. Eli did call in radio talk shows where she espoused the benefits of Scientology, and debated the heathen SPs. After awhile she became cognizant of the abuses of Scientology. Clay was running a mission and could not hear and understand what Eli was trying to say to him. What she had to say never penetrated his understanding.
Then Clay and his senior, Kingsley got dragged off to Flag for umptyzillion hours of Sec Checking. When they got back to their mission, in short order it was taken from them, and all the money they had in savings $100K was seized by the Finance Police. They were declared. A friend gave Clay some auditing. I gave him a job. Finally he realized (much too late) what Eli had been trying to tell him.
His identity of Mr. Super duper Scio wouldn't let him see what was in front of all of our eyes.
Let's say there was a singer named Johnny Fontaine. One day his son, Johnny Fontaine, Jr. was kidnapped by rival business associates of his godfather.
Let's say Johnny Fontaine had a brother. His brother had a kid. The kid changed his last name and got married. The kid dies tragically young. The family has money, knowledge, and connections.
The marital partner moves on, and lives a quiet peaceful life.
The internet happens. Anything posted, even when deleted can sometimes be retrieved.
You post names including a peculiar spelling that is accurate. Lo and behold, Johnny's godfather's associates' children can now find some more family because you, Lakey, went to the trouble of spelling the names and relationships out. Google doesn't forget and it knows all.
The above story may or may not be true. The names may have been changed to protect the innocent.
If you did something like the above, with your truth telling identity, could you have perceived the potential effects of your communication? Even if you were warned specifically about the potential problem?
My statement quoted above stands.
Yes, of course I could perceive the potential effects of my communication. If I was warned specifically about the potential problem, then of course my lips would be sealed. You have never met me, heard my voice seen me or talked to me and yet you have all these assumptions about me and have me all figured out as to what auditing actions I need, what my marital situation is all about and so forth. I admit you are a very perceptive being, no problem with that, but I think it is preseumptious to feel you have all the answers about someone you have never met. Just from reading one's posts about Scio related topics, you can not form an accurate picture of a person's pysche.
Heidrun had read my posts for a while and was thinking of coming to Hollywood and wanted to see my image and hear my voice so she requested a Skype type phone call with a video cam and a mike. Isn't it a bit like study tech. If all you see are printed words on a video screen, you lack the mass to really know and understand the subject. So it is, with knowing a person, even spiritually. You need to see them, get some audio, get some visual, experience their emanations and auras as Heidrun and I did with each other. I know you are a terrific tech person from reading what Diana, Class 8 said about you, but even you, even Hubbard, would need to actually come into some form of contact with a person to have them as well doped out as you claim to have me figured out. That is my take on it. I feel honored that you are so interested in critiquing me but without ever having met me or done any interview with me, I believe a few of your conclusions are ungrounded. I have the Skype set up, so if you want a Skype call PM me and let me know and we can exchange numbers and set it up. If that doesn't occur, I will take your assessments of me with a grain of salt.
Great, let your assertion about me stand in your universe. Enjoy it, savor it. Fine. It doesn't stand in my universe. I care not what you think of me in this area. I thnk that if people give me names and say something which appears to be trite information to me and they don't want me to repeat it or post it then a simple R Factor at the time the info is given is in order, especially if the info was given at our first personal meeting.
One person told me he might bring a person to our next luncheon and mentioned that I would enjoy meeting her because she likes opera. He told me her first and last name. I put it on the board that a person with such and such a first name who likes opera may show up up our next luncheon. This person did give me a general Reality Factor that it was a good policy to not reveal anything at all which my alert OSA to who somebody is. Because of what he told me, I deleted the person's last name. If I write something like, Zelda, who loves basketweaving, may attend our next lunch, I am told that OSA can use this to track her down. Okay, it took two or three of these situations before I caught on.
As you so astutely told me when you said that the blabbermouth is equally out ethics to the person who he gives his information to, who uses it to embezzle funds from the blabbermouth. Why is it always just me. You and others gave me information which I thought was harmless or trivial and failed to state, "Be sure not to repeat this." and because of this, I am guilty of big overts because I posted it and you have no liability whasoever. Had I been given a short admonition not to post the data, both of us would have been clean on the cycle.
I am just like everyone else, once I am told to put a lid on things, I will do it. Since I tend to be a bit of a blabbermouth, that is good reason not to tell me things or if you do and you feel they should not be posted, then a short reminder to me not to post them would be wise. Now that I am more seasoned, the need for the R Factors is much less, but occasionally, I might say something which I feel is innocent and someone else feels is a security breach. In such a case, just don't tell me anything or only tell me and give me an admonition not to say anything and eveything is covered.
Since last November when I started posting a lot here, I think I have had 3 complaints from Carmelo, 2 from Mark Baker, and 1 from Purple Haze. if you graphed it, you could see that the number of complaints per volume of posts was always low but it is going lower on a consistent curve and is now near the bottom axis of the graph. I realize that even one breach could cause someone a nightmare if OSA figures out who they are so if there is any doubt at all, just do not mention anything to me if you feel I may blab it. The stat should remain zero from here on out.
Lakey
LOL!
Kowabunga, dudes! 
