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

[Leon]

YOu can do it solo or you can run it for a client.

as to the rest of the post

YOu run what the client wants and is interested in.

ANd this is not Scn and has nothing to do with it. If you actually want to advance yourself, I recommend you end off on this thing of trying to make everything as Scn. Just look at the post and its tech for what it is. And, by the way, moods are not "data," and the R/D is in no way similar to false data stripping and does not even address nor go near the subject.

On the other hand, if you think Scn is absolutely the thing . . . . ignore my posts

R

I'm surprised that you are so unable to give a civil answer to some questions, Roger. This is a discussion board, and per an earlier post of yours data is to be placed in the open and discussed. Your high and mighty attitude of declaring that your contributions are to be applied and not discussed flies in the face of this. It is quite out of place on a forum like this one.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I'm surprised that you are so unable to give a civil answer to some questions, Roger. This is a discussion board, and per an earlier post of yours data is to be placed in the open and discussed. Your high and mighty attitude of declaring that your contributions are to be applied and not discussed flies in the face of this. It is quite out of place on a forum like this one.

lighten up

it isn't brain surgery

one person's insult is another's easy banter

 

[RogerB]

I'm surprised that you are so unable to give a civil answer to some questions, Roger. This is a discussion board, and per an earlier post of yours data is to be placed in the open and discussed. Your high and mighty attitude of declaring that your contributions are to be applied and not discussed flies in the face of this. It is quite out of place on a forum like this one.

You may "discuss" to your heart's content . . . . I am not obliged to answer. You see, my observation of your "discussion" is always a put down based on your inability to get out of the "it's all the same as . . . " paradigm.

The questions you "posed'" to which I had just answered were so banal as to appear as some joke or effort at needling. So much so, that I do not really believe you are up to getting what I might truly reply.

You don't even ask questions on the actual issue of the post or thing you are "questioning." But too often indulge in telling the person you are "discussing with" what his post is, when it is not what you say it is.

And frankly, I am not going to be led into a merry-go-round of trying to parallel the type of thinking expressed in your "questions" and deal with all the little points you should be unraveling for yourself.

I don't have the time for it.

I am nobody's servant

And I am obliged to answer no one. And no one has the right to demand of anyone on this board "answers" . . . . it is a colossally rude sense of "entitlement" to think so.

We choose to contribute what and as we can.

And I don't have to "defend" anything I post, as you accuse I ought.

I post for the benefit of those who choose to benefit and for those willing to actually use the intellect needed to make something of what I post. For the rest ruff. I am not on any crusade to rescue the stupid.

That's the simple proposition . . . take it or leave it.

And as a last word on this, I would say, in my view, due to your constant accusativeness, you forfeited the courtesy of reply from me some weeks ago. So don't expect any dialogue from me.

R

 

[RogerB]

I remember that movie where Hubbard talked about those black masses "stretching out to the horizon" or words to that effect. I could never quite get my wits around that extension for miles around, although I could accept it theoretically. I mean, what happens when one turns (the body) around to face the other way: do these vastly-extended black masses swing around too? Do they stay where they are? Think about it a bit!

Paul,

Catching up mate.

You've raised a big question to which there are many gradient answers. It's not a simple one answer, answer.

I remember that thing of LRH's as well, now you mention it. In his case, I would say it might well be that since, as we know he stated he was Cecil Rhodes, when he "re-visited" the locale of his earlier (last life) naughty deeds it is likely enormous spiritual masses turned on and superimposed themselves (or itself) in PT between him and the physical universe . . . and hence the "masses" he perceived would stretch to the horizon.

Hubbard does talk of "revivification" of past incidents such that the incident appears in PT as real to the person as the physical universe. Both Alan and I have related on ESMB such incidents as have occurred for us.

I would say, in the case Hubbard spoke of, the mass on the case got revivified, not the hologram of an incident.

As to what you write below, there is a whole vast other way of looking at it.

The human condition and all of the phenomena that have been studied at a human level in the efforts such as you relate below, are very late on the chain of mass development for we Beings. Even the physical universe is very late on the chain of it.

In my own personal experience in dealing with this, this is what I have seen, observed, experienced.

Our spiritual domain of existence is vast; originally actually infinite. And we indeed have built up charge and energy masses, ridges etc., throughout that domain of existence.

In present time, the physical universe is actually inside of the spiritual domain of existence I mention above. So are our individual human bodies.

And in present time we are reduced to (considering that we are and) being in our bodies and in this physical universe, and in so doing have formed and/or relocated our spiritually built up "energy field" of charge and masses about us and our bodies. And these formed and located energy fields/masses are what have been studied as "auras" . . . . but these fields of energy and mass still relate to and extend throughout the physical universe that is within our true domain of existence.

Hence they can, on occasion, be seen to cover or extend across vast physical universe distances. This is demonstrated by events such as "telepathy" which occurs across vast distances.

It is to be noted that, probably because we are so used to looking straight ahead through our eyes, we tend to have "rectilinear" perception instead of holographic and spherical perception about in 360 degrees. And we also have the current habit of considering we have a "front" and a "back."

These limitations are not natural to a spiritual Being: we have a native, infinitely omni-directional holographic perception.

So, to answer your question as to if the person would see the mass if he turned around? He probably would if he stayed in the revivification, as it would be all about him. But it also might not because the reviv might be limited to just the particular vista that triggered it. So, I would say it could but would depend on a number of factors.

Bottom line, however, is that the masses perceived are a spiritual phenomena . . . they are not a body's eyes perception phenomena; though triggered, probably by what was seen via the eyes.

I can see how various imperfections in one's local energy field, one's aura, composed of energy-consciousness from both oneself and others, both harmonious and disharmonious, can be perceived as ridges or masses. A knotty "problem," in structure a glob of frozen energy-consciousness in a particular location in this field (although it could move around a bit), can be described as having location in relation to the body, a particular size and shape and so forth. What is being described is the glob of energy-consciousness, not some abstract idea containing thought only. Since it does contain energy-consciousness, the stuff of life, if including another's energy-consciousness too it could also be called a BT or cluster or something in a less-enlightened terminology. As far as I know, this personal energy field is localized, the finest levels extending out a few feet from the body (see image, although that idealized one is in very good shape and I don't mean the body).

In sessions I have felt what seemed to be "masses" dissipating at some distance from the body, however, so it isn't necessarily a false idea that it happens. I would just like to have a better understanding of it.

Paul

Yes, The first question on Alan's mass handling R/D is "Where is it? And I often locate such to be also beyond the physical universe, often from/in/belonging to an earlier universe . . . but having triggered in the session being run (this is me solo, but it happens with clients also).

The second question is: "What is its size?" For me personally, I tend to use myself as the comparative measure of size, i.e., it's bigger, smaller or the same size as me . . . I'll often relate it to the Physical universe as well.

So, hell yes . . . . these things will dissipate at some distance from the body!

Rog

 

[Terril park]

21 Things You Should Never Buy New


Monday June 28, 2010, 10:24 am EDT


13. Houses: You're typically able to get better and more features for your dollar when you purchase an older home rather than building new. Older houses were often constructed on bigger corner lots, and you also get architectural variety in your neighborhood if the houses were built or remodeled in different eras.

15. Cars: You've probably heard this before: Cars depreciate the second you drive them off of the dealership's lot. In buying a used car, you save money on both the initial cost and the insurance. It also helps to know a trusty mechanic who can check it over first. This way, you'll be aware of any potential problems before you make the purchase.



18. Consumer Electronics: I know most folks like shiny new toys, but refurbished electronic goods are a much sweeter deal. Consumer electronics are returned to the manufacturer for different reasons, but generally, they'll be inspected for damaged parts, fixed, tested, then resold at a lower price. Just make sure you get a good warranty along with your purchase.

Houses in the UK are quite different. Second hand is best quality.
Late Victorian, late Edwardian were built at the time of Englands greatest wealth, and built to very high standards. An englishmans home is his castle
is not so far from the truth. In fact " Original Features" like cast iron fireplaces, marble fire surround, elaborate cornices and roses [ centre ceiling decorative plaster fitting to hand lights from] add to the price. Our last house had 6 cast iron fireplaces.

Cars: I am my own friendly neighbourhood mechanic. I always choose very low milage cars of noted long term durability. But not expensive ones like BMW mercedes. VW is good as are japanese. Some years ago UK/european GM was very good. Vauxhall Opel. When I drove to India in
1971 we took a Vauxhall HA Viva van dating from the sixties. a friend rolled
up with it and asked for the nearest scrap yard. We in our youthfull
crazy enthusiasm decided to use it to drive to India. Lol! I changed the bearing shells and piston rings on my friends kitchen table. And with ferocious hindsite kept them all.

In Istanbul had to handle the rusted gearbox subframe which broke. Used a wire coat hanger which lasted for as long as we drove. And maybe longer.

Skipping all sorts of adventures, including a liason with Ms Kabuls beauty
Queen, risking death, we driving through the Afghan desert and being cold cut of part of the radiator with kitchen foil. Unfortunately we were then using very low quality Afghan engine oil which boiled, and lost its properties and oil pressure dropped to zero. We drove 100 miles with that engine, and arriving in Khandahar. I stripped the engine and put the original big end bearings back.
In the front garden of the hotel.

Oil pressure came back up!!! I loved GM products since then.

Also through sheer idiocy decided to economise by not buying maps, and thus traversed the northern desert of Iran in one night by mistake.....people die there.

Unmade road. We had the luck of those drunk. Having driven into a three foot deep pothole filled with water, we soon had a truck, the only sensible
transport there, push us out.

Then there was our traveling companion a midget from Malaysia. He was driving with a large block of wood attached to the accelerator so his feet could reach. Were stopped at one point by Afghani military. For some reason this didn't bother them and let us carry on. Not sure if he had a block on the brake pedal? He'd never taken driving lessons.

Our bonnet was painted with a Brit Flag. In Afghanistan. Lol! The side with
rainbows and flowers. I think I can post pics.

Oh the follies of youth.

One not a folly [ debatable] was my liason with Protima Bedi. A saint.

A married saint.

Then on a sort of re run, me and my friend between us did 7000 miles in
the US in a 1994 Lincoln Continental. What a wagon. It used no oil!
lots of gas at 20 mpg a couple of years ago.

Consumer electronics:-

Yes. But TV screens have been advancing rapidly. I bought a 50 inch
Pioneer monitor, ninth generation Kuro, considered with its sister 60 inch as the best TV made yet. Bought it a few weeks before pioneer stopped making them. They were loosing money. Got it around half price from the UK
" Richer Sounds" cut price outlets. I'm more fussy about visual than I am for sound.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

My 2 cents worth...you did ask for it!

It is more small minded than narcissistic.

She is from the cult of "the way momma did it"

My wife has two fake knees, as a result of her wild and wooly past on a Triumph 500 motorcycle when she was a teen. She got broadsided by a little old man driving through a red light. Before Scientology, she got to experience exteriorization. At that time, she was a national record holder in 3 breast stoke events. The accident cancelled her Olympic dreams. She swam for Dick Smith in Phoenix.

Some years ago she got a well trained Tennessee Walker (horse). We'd go for long trail walks. All was peaceful. Then our daughter borrowed the horse. She took the horse, and did what we ( my daughter, her friends, and I) do. She kicked the horse into gear and galloped and jumped all over hell and gone. The next time my wife went to ride her horse, he ran away with her, and scared the piss out of her.

As a kid, she had jumped cactus on her horses, but as an adult, she was not interested in falling off and being crippled for life. As the saying goes, "How you gonna keep them down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?" This horse had gotten out of the mind set box of genteel riding, and had experienced the thrills of no holds barred cross country racing. He was never the same well trained horse again. My wife couldn't ride him.

This is what my wife and I do with children (and specifically our grandchildren). Our youngest daughter does it too with her nieces and nephews. We are the relatives from Hell.

One of our boys married a timid woman. When their kids were real little, we took them to San Juan Capistrano. My wife physically restrained our daughter in law, on the beach, while my daughter and I walked the little kids into the waves.

I freaked, the day the oldest boy wouldn't walk around the corner with me. He was afraid. They couldn't walk around Disneyland without being carried. The kids became television addicts at an early age (like their mom). He was afraid of fire in a fireplace.

We, my wife and I, decided to change things.

For two summers, we took them five days a week. We put them in lessons all day from morning to night. We didn't allow them to talk about TV shows or characters. On a daily basis, we ran their little bodies into the ground. By the time they were going home, they'd be demanding to go outside and play, to go to the park, etc. They turned their family upside down. The mom and dad stopped watching TV too.

By the time the oldest boy was six, I was taking him off cornices on black diamond ski runs. I was taking his mom down advance intermediate runs. The Christmas of the tsunami in Thailand, my daughter and I, along with the youngest girl got snowed in for a week. The wind blew at 60 MPH. We took that five year old girl all over the mountain all day every day. There was no mom with us to be afraid for her little daughter. She got to saying "faster" a lot.

Now those two kids do gymnastics, dance, karate. Their mom is a super soccer mom. The kids are in great shape. All ready this summer, the boy has done a whitewater trip with a buddy. They're at a gym or dance class every day. My daughter takes the girl riding once or twice a week.

Our son, their father climbed a couple thousand feet in Yosemite with me, when he was 12. The kids are now, right on track.

The three year old twins, whose mom we are now pushing the envelope on, are getting our (trademarked) grandparents from Hell treatment.

Their mom's mom watches court TV while keeping them in the living room with her when babysitting.

We take them into creeks, to the beach, into the ocean. They now know how to get on and off the trampoline by themselves. We have a jungle gym (which is a spaceship this week), swings, bars, we do bonfires that they help build. We feed them vegetarian, non Cheetos foods.

Grandparents from Hell.

But the question I'd like to know is:

I deliberately set out to find, marry, and have kids with a woman who was a doer, a class Vlll, a Hell raiser, not boxed in a little mold.

My mother was boxed in a little mold. I didn't like it. My father took me rock climbing, working with him, and treated me like an adult. That was what I wanted for my kids - lots of knowledge and hands on experiences. My father had the fastest car at Monterey High when he was growing up. He wasn't ever in a little box.

Why have our boys picked women who fit in little boxes?

What did we miss in our raising them?

It baffles me completely.

Maybe something about her presence reminded him of his Grandma (your Momma), who may have been boxed in a little mold, as were most of her peers due to the over-sociaization and the social limitations of her era, but who may have been a very loving presence that brought out his protective instincts and made him feel like a BIG MAN, or let him feel really loving. Lots of "real men" enjoy that one-up, one-down kind of power in their romantic parters.

(I can't believe I am talking about Carmelo's Momma on this thread! )

It's not unusual for a man to "pick" or be sexually attracted to a woman who is very UNLIKE his mother.

I know you love your wife, she sounds like a wonderful partner for you, but other men (including your sons) might be looking for other attributes in a woman or a wife. It's just possible, isn't it?

You knew what you wanted in a wife...grant them their beingness...maybe a "shy woman" fit the bill for them, or rocked their world, or whatever. It's their choice, Carmelo.

Maybe "Grandparents from hell" (LOL!) and a wife from hell would have been much too much for them. Bold floats your boat, honey, and your wife's, so it's a good match. Other independant adults are entitled to pick the partners of their choice. You did raise your kids to be independant of you, didn't you? Not little clones of the Grandpa from hell?

You are a big enough being that I can challenge you in this way: take a look at your own feelings about being related to or Grandparent of a shy or wimpy kid, a fearful or nervous kid, a physically clumsy kid, a not-so successful kid, etc. How accepting and tolerant are you of this? How unconditionally loving are you of failures to live up to your expectations of them? We all have expectations for the people in our lives, and they have to shift depending on the individual basic nature of those people. If you can do it, (and I think you can!) put that unconditional love and acceptance of them into practice...That would be awesome, Dude!

I don't defend raising overly fearful children, but many people who mean well err too much on the side of caution with young children, and it's a common enough mistake to make. Kids usually grow out of it once they are in school and scouts, sports, clubs, etc.

I don't defend a passive lifestyle, either...but those kids just might learn something from Court t.v., if it's discussed with them in an intelligent manner. Being babysat with Grandma with the tv on is not the worst fate that can befall a child...it's not how you would like them to spend big chunks of their time, but it's not a tragedy, either.

It's clear you've got a lot of negative judgement and distain for these in-laws, so take a good look at what you are communicating to the daughter-in-law and your son in your meta messages to them. Go ahead and be the "fun Grandparents" who are really active and sporty, but try to do it without invalidating their own parenting style and choices too much, or it will cause resentment and foster more passive-aggressive behavior (what you have described in the daughter-in-law's past actions of self-sabotage) and attempts to distance or pull away. Your family is close-knit and partys hard together, and it might feel really difficult for an outsider who doesn't fit the family lifestyle to feel really safe or comfortable or wanted, a sense of belonging there. Try to experience their viewpoint a little, even if you think they are wrong.

I don't think you missed anything in raising them, they are just making different choices than you have made, or would make for them. Grant them their beingness, Dude!

You are a GREAT Dad, I know you can do it!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I wanna see pictures!

Houses in the UK are quite different. Second hand is best quality.
Late Victorian, late Edwardian were built at the time of Englands greatest wealth, and built to very high standards. An englishmans home is his castle
is not so far from the truth. In fact " Original Features" like cast iron fireplaces, marble fire surround, elaborate cornices and roses [ centre ceiling decorative plaster fitting to hand lights from] add to the price. Our last house had 6 cast iron fireplaces.

Cars: I am my own friendly neighbourhood mechanic. I always choose very low milage cars of noted long term durability. But not expensive ones like BMW mercedes. VW is good as are japanese. Some years ago UK/european GM was very good. Vauxhall Opel. When I drove to India in
1971 we took a Vauxhall HA Viva van dating from the sixties. a friend rolled
up with it and asked for the nearest scrap yard. We in our youthfull
crazy enthusiasm decided to use it to drive to India. Lol! I changed the bearing shells and piston rings on my friends kitchen table. And with ferocious hindsite kept them all.

In Istanbul had to handle the rusted gearbox subframe which broke. Used a wire coat hanger which lasted for as long as we drove. And maybe longer.

Skipping all sorts of adventures, including a liason with Ms Kabuls beauty
Queen, risking death, we driving through the Afghan desert and being cold cut of part of the radiator with kitchen foil. Unfortunately we were then using very low quality Afghan engine oil which boiled, and lost its properties and oil pressure dropped to zero. We drove 100 miles with that engine, and arriving in Khandahar. I stripped the engine and put the original big end bearings back.
In the front garden of the hotel.

Oil pressure came back up!!! I loved GM products since then.

Also through sheer idiocy decided to economise by not buying maps, and thus traversed the northern desert of Iran in one night by mistake.....people die there.

Unmade road. We had the luck of those drunk. Having driven into a three foot deep pothole filled with water, we soon had a truck, the only sensible
transport there, push us out.

Then there was our traveling companion a midget from Malaysia. He was driving with a large block of wood attached to the accelerator so his feet could reach. Were stopped at one point by Afghani military. For some reason this didn't bother them and let us carry on. Not sure if he had a block on the brake pedal? He'd never taken driving lessons.

Our bonnet was painted with a Brit Flag. In Afghanistan. Lol! The side with
rainbows and flowers. I think I can post pics.

Oh the follies of youth.

One not a folly [ debatable] was my liason with Protima Bedi. A saint.

A married saint.
Then on a sort of re run, me and my friend between us did 7000 miles in
the US in a 1994 Lincoln Continental. What a wagon. It used no oil!
lots of gas at 20 mpg a couple of years ago.

Consumer electronics:-

Yes. But TV screens have been advancing rapidly. I bought a 50 inch
Pioneer monitor, ninth generation Kuro, considered with its sister 60 inch as the best TV made yet. Bought it a few weeks before pioneer stopped making them. They were loosing money. Got it around half price from the UK
" Richer Sounds" cut price outlets. I'm more fussy about visual than I am for sound.

OMG! Terrill is talking 'bout his love affairs!!! With old cars and married saints, no less. We're gonna compete with the "frat boy" thread, those FCDC wankers, for sure! (Love you guys! )

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul,

Catching up mate.

You've raised a big question to which there are many gradient answers. It's not a simple one answer, answer. <snip>

Thanks very much for all that, Rog. I appreciate the different viewpoint.

Paul

 

[lkwdblds]

Sweet intends good advice but I don't agree with her.

Maybe something about her presence reminded him of his Grandma (your Momma), who may have been boxed in a little mold, as were most of her peers due to the over-sociaization and the social limitations of her era, but who may have been a very loving presence that brought out his protective instincts and made him feel like a BIG MAN, or let him feel really loving. Lots of "real men" enjoy that one-up, one-down kind of power in their romantic parters.

(I can't believe I am talking about Carmelo's Momma on this thread! )

It's not unusual for a man to "pick" or be sexually attracted to a woman who is very UNLIKE his mother.

I know you love your wife, she sounds like a wonderful partner for you, but other men (including your sons) might be looking for other attributes in a woman or a wife. It's just possible, isn't it?

You knew what you wanted in a wife...grant them their beingness...maybe a "shy woman" fit the bill for them, or rocked their world, or whatever. It's their choice, Carmelo.

Maybe "Grandparents from hell" (LOL!) and a wife from hell would have been much too much for them. Bold floats your boat, honey, and your wife's, so it's a good match. Other independant adults are entitled to pick the partners of their choice. You did raise your kids to be independant of you, didn't you? Not little clones of the Grandpa from hell?

You are a big enough being that I can challenge you in this way: take a look at your own feelings about being related to or Grandparent of a shy or wimpy kid, a fearful or nervous kid, a physically clumsy kid, a not-so successful kid, etc. How accepting and tolerant are you of this? How unconditionally loving are you of failures to live up to your expectations of them? We all have expectations for the people in our lives, and they have to shift depending on the individual basic nature of those people. If you can do it, (and I think you can!) put that unconditional love and acceptance of them into practice...That would be awesome, Dude!

I don't defend raising overly fearful children, but many people who mean well err too much on the side of caution with young children, and it's a common enough mistake to make. Kids usually grow out of it once they are in school and scouts, sports, clubs, etc.

I don't defend a passive lifestyle, either...but those kids just might learn something from Court t.v., if it's discussed with them in an intelligent manner. Being babysat with Grandma with the tv on is not the worst fate that can befall a child...it's not how you would like them to spend big chunks of their time, but it's not a tragedy, either.

It's clear you've got a lot of negative judgement and distain for these in-laws, so take a good look at what you are communicating to the daughter-in-law and your son in your meta messages to them. Go ahead and be the "fun Grandparents" who are really active and sporty, but try to do it without invalidating their own parenting style and choices too much, or it will cause resentment and foster more passive-aggressive behavior (what you have described in the daughter-in-law's past actions of self-sabotage) and attempts to distance or pull away. Your family is close-knit and partys hard together, and it might feel really difficult for an outsider who doesn't fit the family lifestyle to feel really safe or comfortable or wanted, a sense of belonging there. Try to experience their viewpoint a little, even if you think they are wrong.

I don't think you missed anything in raising them, they are just making different choices than you have made, or would make for them. Grant them their beingness, Dude!

You are a GREAT Dad, I know you can do it!

Sweet is well intended and gives advice probably similar to what Dear Abby would say. For a large portion of the population at large, the advice is sound but this is Carmelo Orchards we are talking about! As I understand it, there is a heritage going back at least three generations which Carmelo's Grandfather started. This is a spiiritual thing runing for at least 3 generations in Carmelo's family. If only one Son did did not choose a wife in the family traditiion maybe Sweet's comments would apply but both Sons married wives who are not continuing the long family tradition.

Carmelo had the intention for this tradition to continue into the 4th generation and beyond. When he intends something, especially in his own turf, in his own special part of the country and having to do with his immediately family, things generally go his way. He has made this clear on this thread. If his intentions are not panning out as he anticipated, I know he is very concerned and for him to ask the thread members for opinions I believe he would only do this in the hope that some one of us, who are exterior to his situation might possibly see something which he has not noticed from his point of view which is interior to the situation.

To see something which Carmelo might have missed, one has to know Carmelo pretty well and then let their perceptions roam and think outside the box to the nth degree. If that is done boldly with the advantage of being exterior to the problem, there is a chance, just a maybe, that one can see something he missed from his position interior to the situation.

Sweetness, I mean you no harm, only respect. What you have offered is normally good advice, good sound advice for normal citizens of society. In giving advice to Carmelo, I would ask you to try and look outside the box and see that if from your feminine perspective you can let your mind roam and pick up some point of wisdom which Carmelo might have missed. Being female, you have an advantage over me in being able to see things from a female viewpoint. Try and be a Perry Mason, a Lieutenant Columbo, better yet an Agatha Christie and spot something that no one else can see.

I have pondered it a little more. I know that Carmelo's intentions work in his own space. The choices are simple, either he failed to intend continuance of his family traditions and just assumed they would occur or someone with counter intention snuck through his radar screen of his cats, dogs, horses, neighborhood children, his neighbor from the bowling alley, etc. I didn't feel that any potential daughter in law with counter intention could have snuck through his sentry system undetected so I initially opted for him never intending his Sons to carry on the traditions. If someone did sneak through the sentry system then it is the first daughter-in-law; once she breached the sentry system, security was relaxed for the 2nd daughter in law to pass thru with ease. Perhaps, the sentries, sensing that the first Son had strong feelings for the first daughter in law dropped their guards and did not run her off the property as they would normally do to someone entering with counter intention. That is my best shot. Maybe someone else, in particular a woman, can see something that I can not see. Carmelo, I hope this analysis helps you to spot something you can fix. I gave it my best shot.
Lakey

 

[Leon]

Two rules NOT to be violated:

Never question Roger. His wisdoms are for swallowing, not for chewing over.

Never compare Knowledgism to Scientology. Not even when they are transparently similar.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Two rules NOT to be violated:

Never question Roger. His wisdoms are for swallowing, not for chewing over.

Never compare Knowledgism to Scientology. Not even when they are transparently similar.

there was a thread, I think it had the words "Knowledgism" and "field" in the title.

I did both of the above.

I am not auditing you, and I don't care if you resolve this or continue to let it fester.

If you find that thread, you will find that I do disrespect and disagreement without regard to race color creed or whether Roger or anyone thinks my words are inappropriate.

My guess is that you haven't found the right item.

 

[Leon]

I'm satisfied that we have a clash of cultures. As yo say, one man;s banter is another's grievous insult. I see no reason as yet to apologise for anything though if I have wrongfully wronged Roger then I will galdly do so. But methinks he is being somewhat too precious.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Greed is good. - Gordon Gecko

Michael Douglas' ex-wife has filed a lawsuit claiming she is entitled to half the money he has earned from new film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.
Diandra Douglas received a $45 million payout from the couple’s divorce in 2000, but she now claims she is entitled to 50 per cent of the earnings Michael makes from any spinoffs to his previous films.

Diandra Douglas, 52, cites a provision in the couple's 2000 divorce that promises half the profits of any movies done by her famous husband during their two decades as man and wife - including residuals, merchandising and ancillary rights.

The stipulation includes the original 1987 Wall Street.

The 65-year-old actor – who has been married to Chicago actress Catherine Zeta-Jones for 10 years – is said be furious with his former spouse’s suit.

Michael starred in the original Wall Street movie in 1987, and according to him, the new Oliver Stone movie is a “sequel”, not a “spinoff”.
However, Diandra’s lawyer Nancy Chemtob told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper last week: “It’s the same character, the same title, just years later.”

Michael’s lawyer Marilyn Chinitz said: “They’re not the same thing.
“He doesn’t want her to be an albatross around his neck forever.”
Last week, Justice Cooper told the lawyers he hasn’t yet come to a conclusion regarding the case and he will not until he decides whether it should go ahead in New York or be sent back to Santa Barbara, California, where the former couple divorced.

The Douglases' 2000 messy divorce case included sordid allegations that Michael was a sex addict who routinely cheated on his wife.

Earlier in June, Michael Douglas coldly described his ex as "a young mother without any parenting skills handed down from her own parents," during a trial for the pair's drug-dealing son Cameron.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...r-1225885520955?from=public_rss#ixzz0sJwSfxay

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

SnL

There is an idea in me that the child is the forerunner of the adult.

I think it is a whole lot easier to change a child than an adult.

Adults get stuck in their ways.

While TV and DVDs may be good for the people who make them (including my family members),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNT7uUXekjU


I don't think they are healthy activities used in place of doing something.

When you are a child, you aren't encumbered by the necessity of making a living and raising kids. There is time to learn many skills. If instead of learning skills, the child watches TV, that child is choosing being a zombie over a player.

Have you ever watched Court TV? The episode that I saw, that my grandchildren saw was filled with murder, rape, and kidnapping. I'm sure granny could discuss all of that very intelligently with them. I know I would. You might want to get into a metaphysical discussion with them about Charles Manson and the Tate LaBiance killings, but I wouldn't.

I think we can agree to disagree. I would rather they listen to K Earth 101 and Gary Bryan with the music that I grew up with. When we're in a car, they ask for "sand music" -- meaning the Beach Boys, Jan and Dean, etc. They don't ask for murder and rape videos.

One of the twins has a protruding belly. he is in pain much of the time. He'll be four in August. For two years his mother kept discussing when she might take him for tests to see what was bothering him.

I gave up on her doing that. We sent the parents to Hawaii with their friends for two weeks. The moment the parents were in the air, I changed the kids' diets. No more Cheetos, no more sugary "foods." For two weeks the kids ran and swam and played hard all day and into the night. They ate vegetarian. The kid's belly went away. When the parents came back, they were impressed by the kid's belly having healed. Within two days they had it back.

The bottom line is for this mother, "What was good enough for me, is good enough for them."

The bottom line for me is help, ability, skills, practice, failure, more practice, doing new things, learning new skills, travel......

This dialog started out because Enthetan questioned the mother's motives. This mother would (and may) consciously choose to put her kids in a top 500 California school, as opposed to a top 20 California school. She chooses to feed them grease and sugar and chemicals and call it food. She disdains going outside. Forgive me for caring about the children. I should grant the mom the beingness to be the best she can be without my help.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I'm satisfied that we have a clash of cultures. As yo say, one man;s banter is another's grievous insult. I see no reason as yet to apologise for anything though if I have wrongfully wronged Roger then I will galdly do so. But methinks he is being somewhat too precious.

I don't think you need to apologize for anything.

It does appear that you have a burr in your butt.

I like and respect Roger. When I disagree, I do it openly, and it doesn't appear to have harmed our particular give and take.

In the parlance, my advice would be: "take a lude."

 

[Ted]

there was a thread, I think it had the words "Knowledgism" and "field" in the title.

I did both of the above.

I am not auditing you, and I don't care if you resolve this or continue to let it fester.

If you find that thread, you will find that I do disrespect and disagreement without regard to race color creed or whether Roger or anyone thinks my words are inappropriate.

My guess is that you haven't found the right item.

Expectations and Entitlements Go Head to Head... Story at 6:00.

 

[RogerB]

I'm satisfied that we have a clash of cultures. As yo say, one man;s banter is another's grievous insult. I see no reason as yet to apologise for anything though if I have wrongfully wronged Roger then I will galdly do so. But methinks he is being somewhat too precious.

You don't get it mate.

I'm not here for entertainment, or for argument. I don't view ESMB as an arena for sport or for the demonstration of intellectual gymnastics.

And I'm certainly not here to try and prove or disprove anything, and for those who think I should have to indulge in catering to their wish that I "prove it to them" and "defend" what I say . . . screw it. They should do their own homework of investigation and testing to prove/disprove things. Types who make those kinds of challenges demonstrably only ever refuse to accept what is presented but always have another "argument."

As Max Planck, the Nobel Laureate physicist once said, “In science it takes sixty, not thirty years for a new and revolutionary idea to establish itself. Not only must the old professors die off, so must their students.” And I see this phenomena with old Scientologists: anything that does not match that failed paradigm is rejected, refuted, or misinterpreted as being the same as.

My attitude to that is, why be bothered with them; let them be as they wish.

I post with the intent to pass on what info or knowledge I have that I have found and consider will be of benefit to others . . . if you read and understand my posts, you will see I have constantly stated that fact.

I don't care whether individuals take on what I write or not. And I am certainly not interested in the silly little nit-picking exercises, of refutation and challenges and all that silly stuff that you seem to like and want to engage in.

It is a waste of time . . . . you see, you don't actually question: you refute and challenge. You don't seek to expand understanding and to clarify: you seek to refute. And with your constant altering of what is said in my writing and of going off the points at issue, I see it as a fruitless exercise in trying to deal with you. And certainly so since you want to engage in insults, as you did when I once said I was busy with something else and as you are doing in this current exchange. Why should anyone want to be bothered with someone who wants to insult them?

You can think as you wish. I have no compulsion to challenge you or change what you wish to belief; and I certainly have no desire to change your way of thinking. As I said, as far as what I write goes, you can take it or leave it. And if others want to believe you instead of me, they certainly have the right to do so.

R

 

[Ted]

BTW, Rog, glad you are here and being visible through your communications.

 

[lkwdblds]

Replies to Carmelo

On Diandra Douglas I am old school on this topic and think small and middle class. I asked my Mom her opinion on something similar when I was a kid.

The Douglas woman settled for $45 million in 2000. At 5% interrest, she would earn $2.25 millioin per year which is about $45,000 per week. She doesn't have to work or do anything but gets $45,000 per week and still leaves her $45 million completely intact. "Mommy, why does she want more money, Daddy only makes $67,500 a year and he works real hard and the 4 of us have good food, a nice house and car and everything we want. She makes that in a week and a half for doing nothing. Why does she want more?"

Mom would say, "LaKey honey, many rich people are greedy and want even more, they are never satisfied with what they have." I say, "Mom, I don't want to be like rich people, I want to be like Dad and work hard to earn my money and make what he makes. I don't think its fair if I make more money than I need because it takes money away from the poor." Mom says, "Lakey, when you grow up be sure and vote for people from president Roosevelt's party, the Democrats, they take care of the little guys like us who are not rich". Mommy, what about the rich guys, do they have a party that helps them. Yes, Lakey, the Republicans are the party that helps the rich.

I realize that Diandra Douglas is arguing a point of law but my thought processes in the matter are still those of the 8 year old boy who received his opinions from his beloved Mother, God rest her soul. The only thing I regret is that right then and there I decided not to earn a lot of money and be rich. A lot of money came my way, both in the aerospace field and in the home remodeling business but I found a way to unload my money into someone else's pockets, that someone else mainly being the Church of Scientology.

On its being easier to mold a kid's mind than an adults - This is obviously true but unfortunately certain unsavory leaders have already figured this out, in particular Hitler and Stalin stand out. Oh, let us not forget that Sea Org management has also figured it out. What a great time childhood can be. No pressure to earn a living and raise children. Raising children is a two edged sword. It can be arduous and difficult at times but the rewards are often beyond words. To see your little tyke score the wining goal at a soccer game or watch your little girl play a beautiful rendition of Claire de Lune at a piano recital. The return flow to a parent on those types of activities is of incalculabe joy. On these "Oh God!" type threads such as Vinnaire's and Gier's where universes, Gods, and the origins thereof are discussed, I and others have posed the concept that if we are created from a God, then God would get the same type of pleasure from us creating beautiful things that we get when we see our children create beauty.

On the current goings on between Roger and Leon - I am not going to get in the middle of it. Rog is Rog - he is a tremendous asset on this thread and on ESMB and all the other forums on which he participates. What can I say, he has earned the respect we owe him many times over. Leon knows Co fo S tech well and has cleared up some earlier case conditions left over from my old C of S auditing. I am very appreciative.

Rog has stated the terms on which he posts here and has made them very clear to us. I am hoping the two of them will reach a resolution.
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

On Diandra Douglas I am old school on this topic and think small and middle class. I asked my Mom her opinion on something similar when I was a kid.

The Douglas woman settled for $45 million in 2000. At 5% interrest, she would earn $2.25 millioin per year which is about $45,000 per week. She doesn't have to work or do anything but gets $45,000 per week and still leaves her $45 million completely intact. "Mommy, why does she want more money, Daddy only makes $67,500 a year and he works real hard and the 4 of us have good food, a nice house and car and everything we want. She makes that in a week and a half for doing nothing. Why does she want more?"

Past a certain point, money is just a way to keep score in the game of "Who's got more status?". This is one of those games where the only way to win, is not to play.

Looking at it from Diandra's point of view, Michael Douglas married her when she was 19 (and he 33) and divorced her when she was 42 to marry a younger, spectacularly gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones. She's got a LOT of resentment to work out.