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

[afaceinthecrowd]

I still stick to my original point. Ethics point 16 was not in existence prior to 1963; it appeared around 1965 when the Orgs were already moving away from from implementing the early codes. Up through 1963, the Orgs seemed to be implementing the Codes that existed at the time. After 1965 they did not. The fact that a Code came into use after 1963 which was harmful is not germain to the point which I made.

Veda, you seem to have a fixation on forcing your viewpoint down our throats. Many of us mention "A" leads to "B "and then you will bring in "C" and show us that "C" is no good and therefore Hubbard was allways wrong and everything in Scn was always evil. Your response that C was no good may always be correct but the comment is non sequitor and not germain to the main point which we are discussing.

You have represented your viewpoints quite well and very persistently. Even so, you are not changing anyone's mind to your way of thinking. What is the point in playing the Devil's advocate and continually trying to force your viewpoint to be accepted. You are very persistent and have a lot of information at your fingertips but I do not know of one person on this thread who disagrees with you, who ever changed to your point of view after reading one of your posts. What do you hope to gain by incessantly presenting your same argument over and over and never having anyone who disagrees with you ever changing their mind in the slightest way?

You have made your points many times and made them well. This thread affords you a large audience to get your message out to. People are reading you and probably some of them feel you make sense. Why not let it go at that?
Lakey

I originally came to ESMB to read Dart’s “Pandora’s Box” thread. From that thread I became interested in who was here and what they were saying. I embarked on the task of reading all of Dart’s posts, then Alan’s, then several others including Veda. These folks had put down some invaluable, accurate and well presented information. Each one had their own style, perspective and “agenda”. I then found this thread and read it from the beginning. Then I started posting on ESMB because folks like Veda, Rog, Ted, Carmelo, Leon and Lakey were here and I had a few things I wanted to say re: the “Apollo Stars” and El Ron in action.

We all have an “Agenda”, a style and a perspective. I have not asked, nor would want to, for anyone here to change so that I was more “comfortable” with them—the diversity, intellect and differences are what I enjoy about this thread. I also enjoy the fairly consistent collegial atmosphere. Now, by “collegial” I don’t mean syrup and candy; I mean the ability and desire to dialogue and understand from the predicate that one does not know everything and is certainly not perfect.

There are a handful of folks on ESMB of whom I read every post they make, regardless of where or what it’s about. I do this because these are folks that consistently put up posts that are worth reading and from which I gain perspectives and learn or, in other words, expand my frame of reference and context. Veda is one of that handful.

Veda is not a “one trick pony” and anyone that has read all of Veda’s posts knows that. Veda consistently provides, in a new unit in time (forgive me Ted), a wealth of information and access to well documented “context”. It is up to the reader to discern, digest and infer as they wish what Veda puts forward. I’ve never viewed Veda’s posts as “attacking” or rude although they can at times be very blunt. So what? BFD! Get over it already! What’s wrong with being blunt when, in fact, you actually have some “hard data” that is very germane to the discussion. May not be what you wanted to hear, may not be how you wanted to hear it, but, it’s sure as hell germane and it sure as hell is always context and not self aggrandizing fluff.

I am smothering the urge to verbally take you out to the woodshed, Lakey. But, I don’t want to “personalize” this “Veda thing" anymore than you already have in your recent posts. There are a number of things that I could diddle-shit you with about your postings if I wanted to. I could do that with everyone here and y’all could certainly do that with what I have posted and how I posted it.

So I’ll just say this; Veda doesn’t need this thread to have an “audience”, nor do I. Veda isn’t looking for an “audience”, nor am I. Veda has a reason for being here on this thread, as do you and I and all our reasons are most probably different. This is your thread Lakey and I know you are very proud of it, and you should and deserve to be. However it kinda looks like you, as the OP, are “dictating” to Veda what, when and how others can post here. Hopefully, that was not your intent. Right?

I am here to add my context to the ‘Body of Context”, to dialogue, to learn, to have fellowship and generally goof off with other goof offs that are very accomplished and adept at goofing off. Lecturing, sniping and carping is not dialoguing but is part of goofing off…if done in a light, respectful and self inclusive manner.

With Admiration, Respect and a Razzy,

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I originally came to ESMB to read Dart’s “Pandora’s Box” thread. From that thread I became interested in who was here and what they were saying. I embarked on the task of reading all of Dart’s posts, then Alan’s, then several others including Veda. These folks had put down some invaluable, accurate and well presented information. Each one had their own style, perspective and “agenda”. I then found this thread and read it from the beginning. Then I started posting on ESMB because folks like Veda, Rog, Ted, Carmelo, Leon and Lakey were here and I had a few things I wanted to say re: the “Apollo Stars” and El Ron in action.

We all have an “Agenda”, a style and a perspective. I have not asked, nor would want to, for anyone here to change so that I was more “comfortable” with them—the diversity, intellect and differences are what I enjoy about this thread. I also enjoy the fairly consistent collegial atmosphere. Now, by “collegial” I don’t mean syrup and candy; I mean the ability and desire to dialogue and understand from the predicate that one does not know everything and is certainly not perfect.

There are a handful of folks on ESMB whom I read every post they make, regardless of where or what it’s about. I do this because these are folks that consistently put up posts that are worth reading and from which I gain perspectives and learn or, in other words, expand my frame of reference and context. Veda is one of that handful.

Veda is not a “one trick pony” and anyone that has read all of Veda’s posts knows that. Veda consistently provides, in a new unit in time, a wealth of information and access to well documented “context”. It is up to the reader to discern, digest and infer as they wish what Veda puts forward. I’ve never viewed Veda’s posts as “attacking” or rude although they can at times be very blunt. So what? BFD! Get over it already! What’s wrong with being blunt when, in fact, you actually have some “hard data” that is very germane to the discussion. May not be what you wanted to hear, may not be how you wanted to hear it, but, it’s sure as hell germane and it sure as hell is always context and not self aggrandizing fluff.

I am smothering, with some effort, the urge to verbally take you out to the woodshed, Lakey. But, I don’t want to “personalize” this “Veda” thing anymore than you already have in your recent posts. There are a number of things that I could diddle-shit you with about your postings if I wanted to. I could do that with everyone here and y’all could certainly do that with what I have posted and how I posted it.

So I’ll just say this; Veda doesn’t need this thread to have an “audience”, nor do I. Veda isn’t looking for an “audience”, nor am I. Veda has a reason for being here on this thread, as do you and I and all our reasons are most probably different. This is your thread Lakey and I know you are very proud of it, and you should and deserve to be.

However it kinda looks like you, as the OP, are “dictating” to Veda what, when and how others can post here. Hopefully, that was not your intent. Right?

I am here to add my context to the ‘Body of Context”, to dialogue, to learn, to have fellowship and generally goof off with other goof offs that are very accomplished and adept at goofing off. Lecturing, sniping and carping is not dialoguing but is part of goofing off…if done in a light, respectful and self inclusive vein.

With Admiration, Respect and a Razzy,

Face

that^^^^^^^^^^

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

I don't remember the exact number I'm about to approximate, but ten or twenty years ago, I read a book. i think it was Guerilla Marketing, but perhaps I'm wrong. What was stated was that ad agencies have studied people's reactions to radio, TV, and print ads. What they found was that it takes 21 separate views to actually act upon an advertisement.

In point of fact, when I came on ESMB, I was highly incensed by Veda's "attacks." --- that was how I saw his posts. I needed out of the cult box therapy. He provided it. In my mind, TODAY, he provides a very much needed and not particularly wanted service of fact checking and vetting of our tacit assumptions.

Face and Veda have opened my eyes to the skeletal closet of LRH more than any other contributors to ESMB.

In terms of tech, I go with Roger, but that is extraneous to this little comment.

Veda performs a very un- thanked public service.

Up to the day in December when ESMB is put on ice, I would hope that Veda would continue to produce post after post on this thread.

His ability to reality check with verifiable data is a great benefit to us all, perceived or not.

I am most flattered to have my moniker used in the same breath and vein as Veda’s. As I have said before, your presence and comm was the reason I "let 'er buck". Thanks Pal.

Rog is definately the "Babe Ruth" around here on the "Tech" stuff. But, for me, Ted is the Lou Gerhig, your the Ted Williams and Leon the Ty Cobb.

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

That was the essential trap of Scientology. It needed good and loving people on the actual delivery lines in order to be viable, and these good people needed to be convinced that what they were doing was of benefit to the public and the world.

For those of you who have never read or posted on "Freezone" lists such as (but not limited to) Former Scio, Freezone Friends, Ifa chat

there are some extremely deranged psychos out there spouting the "LRH can do no wrong" mantra.

for my part, i got a couple of people into Scientology, who both, have been in the SO for 37 years. they don't know that they are slaves. At least one other person who has given practically her whole life and money to the cult.

I don't wish to repeat that type of mistake.

Veda's postings, for me, give and amplify the dark side that must be watched for in new undertakings.

in my wildest pre ESMB dreams, I had no idea what a snake Hubbard was.

these days I look more closely for snakes such as a portly class 12, but again, not limited to just that one.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I am most flattered to have my moniker used in the same breath and vein as Veda’s. As I have said before, your presence and comm was the reason I "let 'er buck". Thanks Pal.

Rog is definately the "Babe Ruth" around here on the "Tech" stuff. But, for me, Ted is the Lou Gerhig, your the Ted Williams and Leon the Ty Cobb.

Face

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

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Let's not talk about Veda

or Rog, or Ted, or Face, or Leon, or Lakey, or BB, or Enthetan, or Gary, or Thetanic, or......

I Wanna Talk About ME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxUuDPNbkJk&ob=av2e

(or maybe Hats!)

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

or Rog, or Ted, or Face, or Leon, or Lakey, or BB, or Enthetan, or Gary, or Thetanic, or......

I Wanna Talk About ME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxUuDPNbkJk&ob=av2e

(or maybe Hats!)

Ya...let's talk about Hats!

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_29IeEeZqo

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

My girl!

Ya...let's talk about Hats!

Face

I loves her unreservedly! And am here to tell her so!

'Course, I love Fo Ti that way too...:confused2:

EP

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

<snip> RESOLVING THIS DILEMMA?
The best hope of resolving this dilemma which I know of is in using Johnny the Magic Thetan's method of looking at things. In Johnny's paradigm, Veda is correct, 100% correct in his assessments in his own Universe. However, Leon and all of us who believe as he does are also 100% correct in their own Universes. This is totally okay, nobody is wrong in anyway and all parties are sane. If the two sides seek agreement in the Physical Universe, all that is necessary is that each side provide for, in their Universe, the possibility that other sane people may not share their reality, perhaps due to the fact that they view from different viewpoints, or one side is interior to the situation while the other party is exterior to it or whatever the reason may be.

I believe this would be called, GRANTING OF BEINGNESS. Carmelo, Leon, myself and others have all granted beingness to Veda and his point of view. If he could just allow for our point of view to exist within his own Universe, then the entire situation is automatically resolved and in fact, there is no situation any longer. If he can not do that, then either we continue on just as before, endlessly debating and arguing the same points over and over or the two universes simply sever their ties and stop communicating. That would be a shame. IMHO, both sides would lose something major if that were to happen.
Lakey

Ho.. Hum.. I believe I see a great way to lose grip on reality! - My reality, his reality and all of them realities..

Are we in fact rejecting the 'real' reality? - Are scientologists 'operating' with these personal realities that it is bad manners to question.. Invalidate.. ?

Are these personal realities the 'reality' that you become an OT in? - Only in your 'own' mind, all of it?

Arrgh! - Why ARE you using the word 'reality' for this anyway? - What's wrong with: 'I believe', or 'I think', or *My understanding is'.. There's a lot of ways to 'communicate' that we are talking about a personal idea about something or other.

In fact I find the use of 'reality' an attempt to deceive.. Deception designed by Hubbard .. And anyone perpetuating the practice must be suspect?

Reality is reality! - That which is real.. It is a very important concept.. I really don't think we can afford to confuse it or conterfeiting it. We got our logic to lose!

I really think this is one of the basic mind tricks that Hubbard carefully prepared to boggle our minds!

 

[Terril park]

So I’ll just say this; Veda doesn’t need this thread to have an “audience”, nor do I. Veda isn’t looking for an “audience”, nor am I. Veda has a reason for being here on this thread, as do you and I and all our reasons are most probably different. This is your thread Lakey and I know you are very proud of it, and you should and deserve to be.

I disagree. Veda most definitely wants an audience, which is probably why he came to this thread. He is very much a prosyliter. No problem there. I am too from a different direction. I have no problem with the data Veda presents. It should be out there.

However Veda goes into, well I'll just say bad manners, when he castigates
anyone who likes scientology tech and states they are crazy in various ways.
He also attacks those who prosylitise a different message, I'm the favoured
target here. Constant personal insults, wrong indications, and statements that the wrong indications are true to the audiences here.

 

[Ted]

I am most flattered to have my moniker used in the same breath and vein as Veda’s. As I have said before, your presence and comm was the reason I "let 'er buck". Thanks Pal.

Rog is definately the "Babe Ruth" around here on the "Tech" stuff. But, for me, Ted is the Lou Gerhig, your the Ted Williams and Leon the Ty Cobb.

Face

Baseball references! Love it!

But, Facey, maybe Leon doesn't know what an asshole Cobb could be. Great stats, but quite the asshole. Should we rethink that one?

Now I am off to the batting cage.

No, really. I am going to the batting cage. This old boy can still pound 'em out.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I disagree. Veda most definitely wants an audience, which is probably why he came to this thread. He is very much a prosyliter. No problem there. I am too from a different direction. I have no problem with the data Veda presents. It should be out there.

However Veda goes into, well I'll just say bad manners, when he castigates
anyone who likes scientology tech and states they are crazy in various ways.
He also attacks those who prosylitise a different message, I'm the favoured
target here. Constant personal insults, wrong indications, and statements that the wrong indications are true to the audiences here.

BB,

as far as I'm concerned Veda has reached kha khan status with his encyclopedic ability to manifest appropriate quotes that are verifiable.

Yes, he picks on you.


However, if one is going to have an opp term, it is FAR better to have a strong powerful, intelligent opp term than some dofus. You should be proud, and embrace your fortune.

Look at Jack Benny and Fred Allen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iAzAZVJ_7I

I have the unfortunate disability to have rich Hernandez (WHO????) for an opp term. how humiliating is that! I don't even know him, wouldn't recognize him if I was standing next to him. Go figure.

In better times my opp term was Phil Spickler, your OT Class Xlll Auditor friend in California.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=20277

Phil and I got into a fist fight one day in our house (the kids ALL remember it!), as I was trying to eject him from our house. Unfortunately for the feud, we reconnected as friends, as a result of the unsuppressed emotions.

My friend, Snooky, twinned on the bc with James "Jimmy - don't call me 'Jimmy'" Hare. They spent hours and hours pulling each others' withholds -- until one day, they realized they hated one another. Then they were friends forever.

Be proud of your opp term. Veda. Own him. Love him. He spells your name properly. Any and all publicity is better than none.

 

[auntpat]

I love Veda's posts!

Sometimes I get nostalgic for "the good days", the fun we had, the friends I met, and lost.

Veda reminds me that those days and what the "fun" we were having led to the sea org, the rpf, and abortions, and terrible abuse. This is why I lurk and occaisionaly, post, here. I only post when I think I have something worth saying.

Thank you Veda for the information I did not know and for reminding me what "the good days" led to.

Love and light,
Pat

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

I disagree. Veda most definitely wants an audience, which is probably why he came to this thread. He is very much a prosyliter. No problem there. I am too from a different direction. I have no problem with the data Veda presents. It should be out there.

However Veda goes into, well I'll just say bad manners, when he castigates
anyone who likes scientology tech and states they are crazy in various ways.
He also attacks those who prosylitise a different message, I'm the favoured
target here. Constant personal insults, wrong indications, and statements that the wrong indications are true to the audiences here.

I guess I just “see” Veda a different way than you do and that’s okay with me.

Regarding the ‘audience” thing…of course we all want to have what we say read and considered, otherwise we’d just write our stuff and throw it in a trash can. But, I’m not participating on this thread 'cause lots of folks read it, although I think that’s cool—I’m participating here 'cause of the others that are here and the depths of thought, intellect, experience, diversity, irreverence, clever insouciance and "heart" of this crowd. I think Veda is here for sort of the same reason i.e., who is here and what they are saying.

Now, so far my ox hasn’t been gored by Veda, so perhaps I’m lookin’ thru rose colored glasses. Veda has shifted my opinion about some things, clarified and solidified some others and not influenced one stitch my opinion about many other things, or about anyone on this board. However, without “Vedas” there would be no “Crash Testing” or “Reality Checks” or “Devil’s Advocates”. FWIW, that’s my opinion re: Veda and I, personally, will continue to read everything Veda posts on ESMB. My pathway on ESMB would not be the same without Veda and would be the worse for Veda's absence.

Cheers to you, Terril…you’re one of the folks from whom I read every post they make.

Face

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Baseball references! Love it!

But, Facey, maybe Leon doesn't know what an asshole Cobb could be. Great stats, but quite the asshole. Should we rethink that one?

Now I am off to the batting cage.

No, really. I am going to the batting cage. This old boy can still pound 'em out.

I knew that when I wrote it. I'm a big Cobb and Leon fan...great talents, real players and tough little F'rs that I sure enough would want on my team. For some perverse reason I like to diddle with Leon...he's got real moxie!

That's cool, very cool. I loved poundin' the cowhide...wish my grey matter wasn't so F'd up...would love to take some swings.

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Sometimes I get nostalgic for "the good days", the fun we had, the friends I met, and lost.

Veda reminds me that those days and what the "fun" we were having led to the sea org, the rpf, and abortions, and terrible abuse. This is why I lurk and occaisionaly, post, here. I only post when I think I have something worth saying.

Thank you Veda for the information I did not know and for reminding me what "the good days" led to.

Love and light,
Pat

Goodness gracious!

As an auditor (quite unrepentant), I start with (on any PC) WHAT THEY ARE SITTING IN.

hmmmmmm.

Not to evaluate ...... but...

(God I wish Alan was still here)


have you ever noticed that when two people, so much in love, find a "SPLIT"?

it is because LOVE -- oneness -- ends up triggering BANG UPSET SPLIT?

speaking now aloofly of that phenomena:

As an auditor, there is nothing more valuable or promising, than when a PC discloses something similar to this.

What I am talking about is the break up of the Heavens Universe. (ACW's term). The ONENESS BREAK -UP!

guess what?

It is charged!

(I never woulda guessed)


to now go into sociology mode:

it seemed to me (in hind sight) that the 70s - in scio--we were similar enough to the Hey Day of the Heavens Universe, where we were all ONE, just prior to the big BANG of SEPARATION


(which I have audited on myself and others a lottta times)


we have re-inacted the SPLIT.

****************
Ok, Rog. Your turn. Chime IN!

Spill the beans!

(Everybody else, report to a reg. This is handle-able by auditing)

BTW:

PS:

etc

let's see what can be done about getting some ACW's videos on YouTube

Alan furthered the knowledge and application line much farther that LRH.

Not one of us has all the answers. Alan had some glowing gleaming ones though.

 

[RogerB]

Well CarmelO . . .

While you were writing and posting this, I was writing and posted at 4:01PM on the " Life Between Lives — Dr. Michael Newton " thread what you refer to here and ask me to respond to.

Link here . . . it's a long detailed post, post #438.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11252&page=44

What I did not get into were all of the manifestations of the "split," as for example: flipping from love to hatred, from wanting to know to being anti-knowing or ignorant, from wanting to relate to ARCXing, etc., etc. And the trap is that these negative "solutions" become then, the extant dramatized condition of existence

That's why I earlier wrote here that sanity requires "balance." Extreme, one-sided views, are not smart at all.

Though, since we are speaking of "Veda" . . . I must say I do not actually know what Veda's "views" are . . . . I only know what his posts consistently contain . . . and that may not actually be his "views" but simply the material he wishes to post in response to someone else's post.

Having said that, the facts he posts are valid and correct, if on occasion emphasized in an inappropriate way.

R

Goodness gracious!

As an auditor (quite unrepentant), I start with (on any PC) WHAT THEY ARE SITTING IN.

hmmmmmm.

Not to evaluate ...... but...

(God I wish Alan was still here)


have you ever noticed that when two people, so much in love, find a "SPLIT"?

it is because LOVE -- oneness -- ends up triggering BANG UPSET SPLIT?

speaking now aloofly of that phenomena:

As an auditor, there is nothing more valuable or promising, than when a PC discloses something similar to this.

What I am talking about is the break up of the Heavens Universe. (ACW's term). The ONENESS BREAK -UP!

guess what?

It is charged!

(I never woulda guessed)


to now go into sociology mode:

it seemed to me (in hind sight) that the 70s - in scio-- were similar enough to the Hey Day of the Heavens Universe, where we were all ONE, just prior to the big BANG of SEPARATION


(which I have audited on myself and others a lottta times)


we have re-inacted the SPLIT.

****************
Ok, Rog. Your turn. Chime IN!

Spill the beans!

(Everybody else, report to a reg. This is handle-able by auditing)

BTW:

PS:

etc

let's see what can be done about getting some ACW's videos on YouTube

Alan furthered the knowledge and application line much farther that LRH.

Not one of us has all the answers. Alan had some glowing gleaming ones though.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Well CarmelO . . .

While you were writing and posting this, I was writing and posted at 4:01PM on the " Life Between Lives — Dr. Michael Newton " thread what you refer to here and ask me to respond to.

Link here . . . it's a long detailed post, post #438.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11252&page=44

What I did not get into were all of the manifestations of the "split," as for example: flipping from love to hatred, from wanting to know to being anti-knowing or ignorant, from wanting to relate to ARCXing, etc., etc. And the trap is that these negative "solutions" become then, the extant dramatized condition of existence

That's why I earlier wrote here that sanity requires "balance." Extreme, one-sided views, are not smart at all.

Though, since we are speaking of "Veda" . . . I must say I do not actually know what Veda's "views" are . . . . I only know what his posts consistently contain . . . and that may not actually be his "views" but simply the material he wishes to post in response to someone else's post.

Having said that, the facts he posts are valid and correct, if on occasion emphasized in an inappropriate way.

R

BINGO!

 

[lkwdblds]

Hey, what about me, I dub myself the Bob Uecker.

Baseball references! Love it!

But, Facey, maybe Leon doesn't know what an asshole Cobb could be. Great stats, but quite the asshole. Should we rethink that one?

Now I am off to the batting cage.

No, really. I am going to the batting cage. This old boy can still pound 'em out.

I dub myself the Bob Uecker of the thread. Bob Uecker was a very marginal baseball player who did make it to the major leagues with the St. Louis Cardinals. He managed to play there in a part time role for 6 years, 1962 to 1967. For his entire 6 year career he hit a total of 14 home rooms and drove in 74 runs. His lifetime batting average was .200 which is very low. Later on he got a job as a color man on the St. Louis broadcasting staff. He developed a routine not unlike that of comedian Rodney Dangerfield, always putting himself down for being a non entity, just barely making it into the big leagues and lasting there parts of 6 seasons. He was not without accolades. The 1964 St. Louis team won the World Series and he was given his World Series ring and was cut a large cash bonus for playing on the World Championship team. Once in a while they would show a clip of his hitting one of his handfull of home runs.

Uecker's shtick caught on and he was able to launch a career as a comedian and a baseball commentator and broadcaster.

I most resemble Bob Uecker, here on this thread. Barely good enough to play in the big leagues, I did start this thread, which is akin to Uecker getting his one and only championship ring. I possess some ability as a story teller and have a lot of knowledge at my disposal but I am the Bob Uecker of the thread, a guy who just barely made the major leagues but made a name for himself by airing his own dirty laundry and making fun of himself.

Here is a link to Bob: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Uecker

Gary