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

[lkwdblds]

Okay!

Lakey, my Dear,

I don't know what follows on this thread, so your questions regarding this might have been addressed: but here is a little tech point on what is going on that can upset or miff a person when you repeat or interpret stuff back to them . . . . .

In this example here between you and FoTi, she is getting OFF what she is writing, expressing . . . . the last thing in the world anyone wants when they are getting stuff off is for someone to give it back to them! And worse, to start interpreting it and telling what they said. (That is eval, and also can act as though you are invalidating their cause as originator of the comm.)

Let 'em get it OFF.

Simply ack . . . one can add a degree of emphasis to the ack with such things as: "Wow! That part where you said (blah) really indicated/got thru to me, or such" . . . . but that's not telling them what they said nor interpreting it . . . . it is saying how real what they got off was to you. Big difference.

Okay so far this is great! No need to mention interpreting. I never interpret data for others, did not do it for FoTi and have never done it period.


And, of course the risk of interpretation is an altering of what the person is attempting to get off . . . so what they actually said doesn't get duplicated and thus does not get off! And of course the person is left feeling incomplete! The comm did not get across . . . . if you really want to piss people off, constantly alter what it is they are trying to communicate to you. It kills comm . . . remember the key part of comm is duplication!

Roger, As I have mentioned above, I did no interpretation of what FoTi said. You are preaching to the choir. I rephrased and condensed what she said in different words but was careful not to interpret. Her effort to correct me reveals that it was not interpretation which got her upset. In both her examples, she states something like, "Mom brought me lunch." and then challenges me for saying, "What you are saying is that your Mom brought you lunch." It is very clear that there is no interpretation in either of her examples, only duplication and it is not interpretation which caused a bad reaction. It is the phrase, "So what you are saying is..." I think, Rog, you gave the needed technical analysis above when you said that she is trying to get something off and I am feeding it right back to her.

You see this over on the other threads that descend into flame wars . . . some of the idiot nasties constantly engage in altering what it is they are commenting on and then criticize the originator for having originated/said something they didn't say. You can see this going on currently on the " How reliable is our scientific approach?" thread. That is, the originator said "A" and the nasty tells him he's an idiot for having said "b," when he didn't.

It is very obvious that I do not alter what the other commentators are saying. I try and understand what they are saying and acknowledge them. The success of this thread proves my point. The nasties were never attracted to this thread. If one of them does stumble over here they find too much straight talk and sanity for their tastes and quickly leave.

In the old days when I was doing serious TRs and training processors, one of the things I found was that it is very often very upsetting to a student to have the coach repeat the question back at the student . . . that is, student uses the question: "Do birds fly" . . . .and you instantly only repeat it back at him/her.

Rog

Rog, What I do, is just not being interpreted properly. It is frustrating. I don't even know if anything which I say in my defense is even being read.

In using TR's, 1 and 3 combined. It might go something like this

Me: "Do fish swim?"
Coach: "Finny creatures navigate through the salty brine."
Me: "So can I take that to mean that fish swim?"
Coach" Yes."

I do not interpret, I do not repeat the exact same words back to the other person. All I do is rephrase and condense.

You correctly spotted my error and that was feeding something back to a person who was trying to get rid of it. Your indication was correct, spot on, concise and brilliant.

I will apply your remedy and see when some one is unburdening and not give them the type of acknowledgement which hinders there unburdeing process and tends to reflect the data back into their mind. The stong acknowledgement which you gave as an example of how to acknowledge strongly was also perfect. I will follow that as my model. Thank you for your help.

The other things which you are indicating to me are not my items. You handled my correct items so maybe somebody else can learn something from the portions of your post which deal with interpreting and feeding back to the person exactly what they just told you verbatim. I never had a problem with either of those two areas.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

5 hours before I went to the hospital I took 4 huge potassium pills. I had taken some earlier in the day also with salt tablets. I was then drinking tomato juice at my work station and all of a sudden they seemed to dissolve in my stomach at the same time. Things started to go wrong. It was the trigger....definitely. For someone who doesn't sweat much I should've been on a shallower gradient.
I don't remember who told me it was not a good mix, my general paractitioner I believe.

Here's info about the dangers of potassium.

http://www.nutrient-world.com/mineral-resource/dangers-of-high-potassium-levels.html

 

[FoTi]

I think this is terrible. Does the FSO still adhere to the policy of illegal PCs? I mean is it because Geoff is on medications.

My husband was on valium and other meds while getting assistance at the Champagne/ Urbana org in Illinois. At first they denied him everything except locationals. Later a Class VIII came up from St Louis and gave him auditing to run out his accident. He was not denied a CCRD at AOLA. It seems Flag cannot have any auditing losses and has a tendency to cover their asses.
More rollercoasters have been sent away from auditing lines there than most anywhere else the way I hear it.

Do you know the reason they gave for not handling him anymore?

I hope his passing is as easy as possible.

A terminal illness makes one an illegal PC. Anyone who is terminal or who has any potential of dying at Flag, such as someone with a bad heart, or who they think might have a stroke, or who flips out is an illegal PC and is also not allowed on the base at Flag. Ever since Lisa McPherson this is the way it is. They are afraid of anyone potentially dying on any Flag property. They don't want the bad publicity or to be blamed for anyone's death if they are found dead on any of Flag's properties.

 

[lkwdblds]

Roger handled the tech out point!

The following is a quote from Lakey's post back to me.

.

"I make no effort to interpret, only an effort to condense and paraphrase before acknowledgeing.

Suppose you post on this thread....."I went out to dinner with Evy. We had a wonderful time." Then I read your post and I comment..."What you are saying is that you went out to dinner with Evy. I'm glad you had a good time, Lakey."

This is not a realistic example. When I use the "what you are saying" line, I usually paraphrase a long and sort of complicated phrase into a shorter and simpler phrase. If you say, Mom and I went to the org together, I would never use the "what you are saying" phrase.

Or...say you post..."When I was on the Apollo, I saw a lot of things there that should have never happened." Then I read your post and I comment....."As I see it, what you are saying is that when you were on the Apollo you saw a alot of things there that should have never happened. Thanks for telling us about your experiences on the Apollo, Lakey."

No, no, you are missing the point! I might say that my new senior on Flag, Sandy, just told me one word, "Start!". I protested that I was just in training since I had just today started my Data Evaluators' Course, and had no training in what to do. Sandy then repeated "Start!" and I said, okay, could you please give me your Hat Write Up so I can check out the flow and command lines around here. Sandy said, "God Dam It! THere is no fucking Hat Write Up, just fucking Start!" I then said, this is the Flagship, the highest of all Orgs, how could there not be any Hat Write Up for a major post such as this. Sandy said, "God Dam it. Either fucking get started right now or I am sending you to Ethics". I sat there stunned not knowing what to do.

After all that, an astute reader might say, "So what you were saying is that the Flag Ship with Hubbard on Board was not on policy as you had been led to expect and heavy force was used to get newer people to take the fall when the entire activity collapsed. FOR ME, I WOULD HAVE FELT RELIEF THAT SOMEBODY DUPLICATED WHAT I WAS SAYING, CONDENSED A LONG RAMBLING DISSERTATION INTO JUST A COUPLE OF SENTENCES AND TOOK THE TROUBLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ME.

Your above paragrahs are not what I do, I don't just repeat the exact sentence but shorten and paraphrase many longer sentences so your above question is not relevant.

What's a simple acknowledgement to you?

TR 2 says to give an appropriate acknowledgement. In my example above about Sandy using profanity and acting irrationally and me being all confused as to how to act or how to respond to her, just saying "good" of "okay" is not appropriate and comes across as being robotic.

How do you normally talk to people when they tell you something? Do you repeat back to them what they said?"




Acknowledging a person and clarifying what a person is saying are two different things. If you don't understand what I'm saying or you wish to clarify for yourself what I said because you are unsure, then I understand why you might do that with a clarification to me that you aren't sure you got what I said, then it might not bother me when you do that. It does give me the feeling that you aren't sure that you understood what I said. If you want to acknowledge what I write a simple ack will do and if you want to discuss what I'm saying that's okay too. I don't like people repeating back to me what I said unless they don't understand and want me to clarify, which I will normally do my best to accomodate them.

I never saw anything in the comm cycle or auditor's TRs that said to repeat back to the person what they just said to you. I find it irritating. It also makes me feel like I'm talking to a parrot, not a human being. Parrots repeat stuff back to you but they don't understand what they are saying usually. I never did it with a PC or in real life situations nor have I ever had an auditor do it with me.

According to what you wrote in the top part of this post, I understand according to you I am not a very astute reader.

Roger found the correct technical outpoint which I did which was upsetting to you. Interpreting was not involved. Just read his critique and my response. It all makes sense to me now. I personally like it when somebody's rephrases what I said and feeds it back to me. I then feel that they feel I am important enough to have gone to all that trouble to duplicate me and they are showing me that they really got it by putting my same thoughts, without interpretation, into their own words. Because I like when this is done on me, I made a quantum leap and figured that you would like this as well. I really screwed up making that quantum leap. You dislike what I did a great deal. Roger pointed out the correct tech violation which I made so I will use a different technique now in trying to give someone a big acknowledgement.

That's all there is to say about it. I meant well, used a form of acknowledgement that got you upset. I was shown where my technical mistake lied and am apologizing for upsetting you. I hope that ends the cycle on this. I have no more to say about it. I hope that satisfies you. If it doesn't, there is nothing more which I can do.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

I'm trying to do my homework assignment but the cat just chewed up my notes.

What class are you taking?

 

[FoTi]

Blondes ain't my item but Teri Garr is someone I've had serious lust issues about in so many ways. The woman is brilliant, funny, beautiful and one of the few greatly undervalued actresses in the u.s..


Mark A. Baker

I used to take an acting class with Teri Garr. She was a very shy gal. I was very surprised at the way she blossomed years later and became successful. I liked her. She was very nice, friendly and down to earth....a poor struggling acting student back then, like the rest of us.

 

[FoTi]

Lakey, my Dear,

I don't know what follows on this thread, so your questions regarding this might have been addressed: but here is a little tech point on what is going on that can upset or miff a person when you repeat or interpret stuff back to them . . . . .

In this example here between you and FoTi, she is getting OFF what she is writing, expressing . . . . the last thing in the world anyone wants when they are getting stuff off is for someone to give it back to them! And worse, to start interpreting it and telling what they said. (That is eval, and also can act as though you are invalidating their cause as originator of the comm.)

Let 'em get it OFF.

Simply ack . . . one can add a degree of emphasis to the ack with such things as: "Wow! That part where you said (blah) really indicated/got thru to me, or such" . . . . but that's not telling them what they said nor interpreting it . . . . it is saying how real what they got off was to you. Big difference.

And, of course the risk of interpretation is an altering of what the person is attempting to get off . . . so what they actually said doesn't get duplicated and thus does not get off! And of course the person is left feeling incomplete! The comm did not get across . . . . if you really want to piss people off, constantly alter what it is they are trying to communicate to you. It kills comm . . . remember the key part of comm is duplication!

You see this over on the other threads that descend into flame wars . . . some of the idiot nasties constantly engage in altering what it is they are commenting on and then criticize the originator for having originated/said something they didn't say. You can see this going on currently on the " How reliable is our scientific approach?" thread. That is, the originator said "A" and the nasty tells him he's an idiot for having said "b," when he didn't.

In the old days when I was doing serious TRs and training processors, one of the things I found was that it is very often very upsetting to a student to have the coach repeat the question back at the student . . . that is, student uses the question: "Do birds fly" . . . .and you instantly only repeat it back at him/her.

Rog

Roger, I was hoping someone else could chime in and explain this to him. I didn't know how to get my point across. This is exactly what I was trying to convey to Lakey, but didn't know how to say it.

 

[FoTi]

Roger found the correct technical outpoint which I did which was upsetting to you. Interpreting was not involved. Just read his critique and my response. It all makes sense to me now. I personally like it when somebody's rephrases what I said and feeds it back to me. I then feel that they feel I am important to have gone to all that trouble to duplicate me and they are showing me that they really got it by putting my same thoughts, without interpretation, into their own words. Because I like when this is done on me, I made a quantum leap and figured that you would like this as well. I really screwed up making that quantum leap. You dislike what I did a great deal. Roger pointed out the correct tech violation which I made so I will use a different technique now in trying to give someone a big acknowledgement.

That's all there is to say about it. I meant well, used a form of acknowledgement that got you upset. I was shown where my technical mistake lied and am apologizing for upsetting you. I hope that ends the cycle on this. I have no more to say about it. I hope that satisfies you. If it doesn't, there is nothing more which I can do.
Lakey

Okay.

 

[Enthetan]

Yes, one can OD on potassium . . . that is why the FDA limits supplement pills to only 99mg dose. Four "Huge" ones at once would put you into that ball park of OD. And it will affect the heart.

Rog

You got that right, Rog. Potassium Chloride OD is what is frequently used in execution by lethal injection. Safety info about Potassium Chloride here

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Lest we take each other too seriously!

If you can find a better rendition of "Chi il bel sogno di Doretta" ... well, I'd be very glad to hear it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvEiFGL3RjU

EP

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Ted Murphey's Law of Internet Posting: If a post is written in such a way that it can be interpreted from more than one angle, there will be readers who take it the wrong way then require clarification. It is best to clarify yourself before hitting the "send" key. If no clarification is forthcoming, delete and do not send.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Great truthiness here!

Yes, well, this might be a symptom of what I feel is an inherent error in the Scn paradigm . . . the incessant hunt for what is negative/wrong to fix.

I too still have to address negatives and eliminate such . . . . but the big difference is in the perspective from which it is done.

I no longer operate from the perspective that I've got to find negatives to eliminate in order to get better and "handle" my scene . . . as was the case when operating with the Scn paradigm. Nowadays, I get on with life empowering and enhancing my positives, powers and abilities and only address such negatives that get incidentally triggered or accessed as I expand my positives, powers and abilities . . . and believe me, there's tons of it to deal with . . . but it's in the context of and based on cleaning up and empowering my positives.

Scn did not and does not do enough address to one's powers and abilities, virtues and positives aspects of existence . . . interestingly, the positive attributes of a Being are not even listed in Scn as a part of its tech! It's rather like the medical profession . . . they are big on treatment of ills, but they have not developed the tech of what is an optimum human condition nor optimum nutritional scenario: it's all based on intervention to to handle/prevent ills.
Rog

Totally agree with you Rog- Very well said!!! You big beautiful Being, you!!!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Hi Dee Ho!

Do you mean this message board or just this thread?
I've been here since near the beginning.

Welcome aboard the "Aboard the Apollo" thread, matey! Yarrr!!!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Thump-a-thump!

As I had it explained to me, the main problem with taking in salt in excess is that it causes more bodily fluids to be retained. This fluid retention seems to lead to more work demand being placed on the heart. It also leads to increased blood pressure. If the heart can not do all the pumping which is required of it, then ones extremities will show a retention of fluids such as near the ankles or wrists. This fluid build up is called edema. If you have this condition, heart doctors will have you take diuretics which are designed to eliminate excess water in the body.

High blood pressure is an unusual "animal". In of itself, it is not necessarily harmful if it occurs for short intervals but when the high blood pressure is chronic, it makes the meart muscle work harder. Like any muscle, when worked hard, the heart muscle enlarges. I asked my cardiologist what was the matter with the heart muscle getting a good workout and growing stronger. The bad news is that the heart enlargement occuring from high blood pressure is a thickening of the heart muscle and this is bad. I don't fully understand why it is harmful but it is very bad when this happens and if enlargement goes on too far, the persons heart will tend to fail.
Potassium is important to keep the electrical impulses of the heart in the proper rhythm. If your heart rhythm is irregular, then you heartbeat is irregular and instead of being efficiently pumped, some of your blood will tend to pool in your atruim ventricle of the heart and this pooling may lead to clot formation. The clot formation will then lead to a high risk of strokes.
Lakey

Lakey, believe it or not, I can actually explain the why of this...as my genetic entity (my human body for the lurkers) comes from a long line of people with all kinds of cardiac issues...

Your heart as a pump does not work like a mechanical pump, but more like the squeezing action of twisting a hand towel to get all the water out. A small or slender hand towel that is sopping wet is much easier to twist and move all the water out (blood, in the case of our hearts beating and squeezing fluid through our bodies) than a big thick fluffy bath towel...Try twisting that critter dry by hand when it is sopping wet, takes much more effort.

Same issue with having an enlarged heart, it has to work harder with each beat to empty itself off all the blood that flows back in after each emptying "squeezy" beat...

There is a condition called athletic heart, for folks who do very strenuous cardio exercise, true world class athletes tend to have slightly larger hearts than the common herd, but this is not the harmful kind of enlargement of the thickening of the heart walls (creating a bigger towel to twist dry with each heartbeat).

I hope this explains it a bit better.

 

[lkwdblds]

It gives a nice visual and appears to make sense.

Lakey, believe it or not, I can actually explain the why of this...as my genetic entity (my human body for the lurkers) comes from a long line of people with all kinds of cardiac issues...

Your heart as a pump does not work like a mechanical pump, but more like the squeezing action of twisting a hand towel to get all the water out. A small or slender hand towel that is sopping wet is much easier to twist and move all the water out (blood, in the case of our hearts beating and squeezing fluid through our bodies) than a big thick fluffy bath towel...Try twisting that critter dry by hand when it is sopping wet, takes much more effort.

Same issue with having an enlarged heart, it has to work harder with each beat to empty itself off all the blood that flows back in after each emptying "squeezy" beat...

There is a condition called athletic heart, for folks who do very strenuous cardio exercise, true world class athletes tend to have slightly larger hearts than the common herd, but this is not the harmful kind of enlargement of the thickening of the heart walls (creating a bigger towel to twist dry with each heartbeat).

I hope this explains it a bit better.

This makes a lot of sense to me for whatever that is worth because I am no expert and it does give a very plausible visual picture of what is going on. Thanks for making this nice contributiion Sweetness.

Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Very Nice EP

If you can find a better rendition of "Chi il bel sogno di Doretta" ... well, I'd be very glad to hear it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvEiFGL3RjU

EP

Beautiful performance EP, thanks for posting this. I am not too knowledgible on Puccini or Verdi for that matter. I saw Puccini's La Boeheme with my daughter at the Orange County Center of the Arts about 5 years ago. It was a beautiful and memorable pereformance. The sets were beautiful as well. Puccini lived all the way up to 1924 which surprised me when I learned it.
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook billionaire) never had to "run out" any so-called GPMs to be successful, as far as I know.
And neither did Warren Buffet.

Go and figure that one out.

Let me know when anyone has an explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfea6IWiYu0&feature=related

Mark Zuckerberg's rep on the street is that of a real scum bag.

Howard Hughes went from being a dynamic fun loving studio exec and aircraft builder to a rich guy, who bought Las Vegas and LV TV stations so that he could watch westerns all night. He died with finger and toe nails that were several inches long.

Rich does not equal sane. It doesn't equal insane either.

Your benchmark need s some work.

I think life is for living, and auditing is for helping "you" when you put your foot in a cow pie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_81PchgI7A&feature=channel

Having as full an understanding of how people tick is a very important cornerstone to any spiritual or psychological practices looking to help someone.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

A News Story and rap Song made from the story

This is HOT!
watch it through to the end. Two white boys remixed the news story into a rap song. It's terrific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civOdWxd4Kc

 

[programmer_guy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfea6IWiYu0&feature=related

Mark Zuckerberg's rep on the street is that of a real scum bag.

Howard Hughes went from being a dynamic fun loving studio exec and aircraft builder to a rich guy, who bought Las Vegas and LV TV stations so that he could watch westerns all night. He died with finger and toe nails that were several inches long.

Rich does not equal sane. It doesn't equal insane either.

Your benchmark need s some work.

I think life is for living, and auditing is for helping "you" when you put your foot in a cow pie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_81PchgI7A&feature=channel

Having as full an understanding of how people tick is a very important cornerstone to any spiritual or psychological practices looking to help someone.

Name some people that have lots of money who you respect. Then I will understand "where you are coming from".

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Name some people that have lots of money who you respect. Then I will understand "where you are coming from".

Warren Buffett
Jimmy Buffett
Sir Paul McCartney
Steve Jobs
Larry Ellison
Hugh Hefner
Sir Richard Branson
Robbie Levin

where I'm coming from is that money is not an automatic sign of success

being an independent thinker, creator, organizer is great, but there is nothing wrong with being a cleaning lady, who tango dances, and raises her children.

we each have our own sets of values

If i was choosing a parental figure, I'd choose Jerry Garcia or any number of posters to this thread over Donald Trump any day of the week.