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

[Ted]

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

I nominate Lakey for the Bob Uecker role.

Any seconds?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You don't really know what the Fair Tax proposes, do you?

Allowances are made for the poor so their living expenses are covered without taxation.

Yes, Ted, I do. The "fair tax" as structured still manages to shift the tax burden away from those with the most disposable discretionary income (i.e. "the wealthy") to those with far less ddi.

Because of the income subsidies the poorest do get off "lightly", but then they haven't any money to start with. However, the "fair tax" is still regressive in its effects on the working & middle classes, whereas high income individuals with the highest ddi can readily avoid taxation on the bulk of their incomes.

It's a "lovely thought", but really bad fiscal policy.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Terril park]

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.

Actually its veda who should be proud.

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.

I know him well over the net and have met him We get on fine. Please
e -mail me further on this, I may be able to help. I think I may know whats going on.

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.

Veda wants a fist fight I'm up for it. I'm in the heavyweight division.

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.

Thats why he stalks me.

Don't see spelling well as an important virtue. Spell checkers agree with me.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

This is Louise Brooks of the Ziegfeld Follies and silent films. Her hair bob is still a known look. When my mother was young, she had this hairdo.

Yes, it's a very nice coiffure.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

Veda and I do not agree completely. Yet we get along. Where we do not agree is on the issue of Scientology *always* and in every instance being evil. That is *not* his position, although he is often accused of holding it.

That position is *mine* and we disagree.

Zinj

 

[Mark A. Baker]

any number of us would like to hear those recordings. Would you be willing to turn them into mp3s and send them to me? if not that, duplicate them and send me copies?

I can beg on my knees too.

Ummm, why don't you leave the "begging on one's knees" to one of the currently unattached males on the board?


Mark A. Baker

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

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

Damn, Lakey…does that mean you don’t want to be Maury Wills anymore? Remember? I dubbed you the Maury Wills of this thread.

Maury Wills…a real scrapper, never gave up on a play, did whatever it took to get on base which made the big hitters want to get their “ups” and take their swings.

I liked Uecker, too. How’s about Maury Uecker or Bob Wills?

One thing for sure is you sure aint no Barry Bonds…but hey, I never liked that junky anyway.

Face

 

[RogerB]

I nominate Lakey for the Bob Uecker role.

Any seconds?

Who's Bob Eecker ?

I'm an Ozzie, I can name all the old cricketers . . . but this boring version of "rounders" is beyond me

So if Lakey wants Uecker, he can have him!

R

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I see the same old, tired arguments from the same folks about what Scn is and what Scn isn't.

And what I observe is that those in argument are talking at each other about different times, different periods of Scn development.

Yes Hubbard had his agenda, yes Hubbard lied, yes all of that shit . . . . we now know that. And we also now know what the org scene is as has come to be . . . but the scene was not always that way . . . and that is what some of the mutton-heads in this argument seem to refuse to acknowledge.

It is now well documented that Scn, as a technical endeavor, went negative in early 1963. I wrote on this on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread.

There are several aspects of this negativity. One is that Hubbard abandoned addressing your powers, abilities, goals, dreams and aspirations in April 1963 when he wrote that "all GPMs processed to date were not your own but implants." And the tech abandoned you and your powers/abilities and focused on what was affecting you and what you were effect of/suffering. It put the source and cause of your condition of existence elsewhere than with you . . . and that is a grave, grievous error . . . it posits you are not responsible, but a victim.

Additionally, as CarmelO writes, the beginning session Ruds that used to ask for the PC goals for life and livingness and for the session, were dropped (some time in '64-'65) . . . . so now the sessions were not towards what the PC wanted but instead towards what he/she was being told to have!

Prior to 1965, the predominance of folks coming in were interested in betterment as in increased knowledge and ability to perform and accomplish what they wanted in life. Scn was an interesting new look at life and the conditions of existence, and a huge departure from the status quo . . . so it attracted the adventurous and those who were willing to step outside of the box and learn something and do some good for themselves and their fellows.

A huge part of the scenario up until 1963 was that virtually all folks that came into Scn did training and learned to audit. When I was on staff in Melbourne in '62-'64 all the staff were auditors and we all co-audited, give and get, 20 hours per week.

Indeed, the first "grades" (1964 from memory, not the Grade Chart which came out originally in '65, but the original delineation of the grades) required the person be trained on the processes of the grade to qualify for receiving them.

But with the shift by Hubbard from addressing your cause and powers/abilities to focus on what's wrong with you that needs be removed, we had a vast shift in emphasis to victimhood.

You see this with the Dissem Formula when it was introduced ('65?) effectively all recruitment of newbies focused on what is wrong, what is "ruining" the person's life . . . and with this change in focus also was created the two paths of Scn . . . the PC side of the Grade Chart, and the Auditor/Training side.

So, by then, in '65 we had the victim side of the "bridge" and the more causative side of the training . . .

I spell all this out because this history of change that occurred in Scn is not something folks who came in after '65 understand. It might be ancient history to them . . . and superficially "known," but is sure as hell is not understood by them; and so we see the arguments we see.

There was a time in Scn, early Scn, when folks were honored as to their personal wants, dreams, aspirations, powers and abilities and they were given the tools (processes) and freedom to pursue them and to benefit from the application of the tech in the way that best suited them.

And we had big time, phenomenal gains and wins from it. Their was no KSW straight-jacket. Auditors honored each other and worked to help each other both is session and outside of session with discussion of the tech and advices to each other.

The early days was truly a voyage of discovery and of benefit for those who participated.

However, having said that, it is also true that the tech was incomplete . . . we knew that as we knew it was still being researched and developed. The tech, in retrospect now, can also be seen to contain some errors . . . . but one should not be too critical of that as it was a learning curve and research.

The only valid gripes any should and ought to have about it all, in my view, are these issues: a) Hubbard lied to us about so many things, b) his research methodology was so superficial, skimpy and flawed that areas addressed were routinely left incomplete or remained containing critical errors . . . and this all the while he lied to us about his competence and thoroughness and all the bullshit about him "rising above the bank."

So, what we have had as "Scn" is two distinct scenarios: one wherein we individually were and could be responsible for our actions and progress; and the other wherein you are assumed to not be responsible where in "upper management" has to control and direct you, wherein you as an auditor are not allowed to address the case you see in front of you but are told what to deal with by the system, and as a student of the subject you are not allowed the courtesy and right to "discuss" the tech in any way!

And as I have said above, these are two distinct and different times in the history and development of the entity we call "Scn."

But, I've said it before, and will do so again: the early days were FUN! And my participation in them benefited me enormously.

RogerB

Needs repeating.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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.

And as I've said before, he reminds me of Lone Ranger (dec.), both in the "good" as well as the "bad".


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

I will disagree as completely with those who suggest that Scientology went 'off the rails' in 1963 as I will with those who insist that it wasn't until 1980, or, the newest version, sometime shortly before Marty blew.

From the outset the evolution of Scientology *should* have been obvious. No matter how much 'fun' it was. If how much 'fun' it was should be the criteria, well, there are a lot of things that are or were 'fun' for a while.

Zinj

 

[Mark A. Baker]

On the issue of this current little "dispute" regarding the truth of what Scn is or is not, and the posts and value of the likes of Veda etc., I have this to say.

Sanity, in many respects, is an issue of balanced judgment. A judgment and analysis that takes into account all of the elements and with all elements correctly weighted.

What pisses people off, and what is destructive, is when extreme one-sided "viewpoints" based on only one element of the issues and facts of the scenario are asserted and also used in incorrect balance weight and value compared to the whole.

As an example, Veda, Degraded Being, et al, only sing one part of the song . . . and from what I see, sing it out of tune.

There is good and bad of and in Scn. Hubbard lied and was nuts and did show some evil intents . . . . but he also showed some positive sides . . . and folks have been helped and benefited from what he provided as well as harmed.

The sensible posters here present a balanced view of the facts, and align the facts in terms of relative importance.

The nuts only sing one little part of the song, and accent it to their agenda.

In looking at this, I can only say that based on the info I can get from those who actually did any Scn (some critics, like Zinj, appear to have never been in nor experienced any of it) I would say they at one time felt the subject had some merit and they got some insight but that they later, "for whatever reasons," turned against the subject.

This is the classic "Power Split" scenario I spoke of in Pasadena . . . the Being splits away against that which it formerly wanted and enjoyed . . . The Being goes into a reverse "polarity" or "vector" against its former position.

This is all well understood in Kn. It is the result of experiencing something (abuse or too much BPC/charge accumulating) that the Being is unable to or refuses to experience and the mood scale response is to attack and/or go elsewhere to and hate that which the person formerly was involved in.

The "Power Split" is a solution to the problem of being made experience abuse or what the Being most does not want.

Of course, it is not necessarily a "sane" response . . . it is reactive, it is extreme, and it does not correctly balance the factors in the area or subject being reacted to.

And it is from this kind of reactive, or possibly evil or insane, position that certain folks always only ridicule and invalidate the positive points expressed in the balanced and more sane expressions of experience in Scn of others.

I would therefore say to Veda, in particular here, while your posts are accurate and contain a brilliant exposition of what Hubbard actually wrote, I would say you would be better appreciated if you also allowed the balanced fact that many did experience and obtain some positives from their association with Scn. And in particular those who were doing it before it went nuts in '63.

RogerB

You're on a roll, Rog.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... has reached kha khan status ...

Some of us never bought in to that "kha khan" BS.

It's just another justifier used to defend the indefensible.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. I DO enjoy the irony associated with your specific use of the term, however.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I know him well over the net and have met him We get on fine. Please e -mail me further on this, I may be able to help. I think I may know whats going on.

Very doubtful, BB. From what I've heard this has more to do with the insanities prevalent among the american electorate, specifically California's electorate. That's not an area of your expertise.

Besides, it's okay for people NOT to get along. Just cancel their 2nd amendment rights FIRST.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

What's with this over simplification to just having fun?

I will disagree as completely with those who suggest that Scientology went 'off the rails' in 1963 as I will with those who insist that it wasn't until 1980, or, the newest version, sometime shortly before Marty blew.

From the outset the evolution of Scientology *should* have been obvious. No matter how much 'fun' it was. If how much 'fun' it was should be the criteria, well, there are a lot of things that are or were 'fun' for a while.

Zinj

Who in the hell said that having a certain amount of "fun" was the key criteria. I certainly never even hinted such a thing. There are several key factors which exist which prevent several of us from condeming the entire activity as pure evil. Key among these are:

1. Society was rife for improvement. The key divisions of society such as religions, governments, politics, mental health, journalism, education and other sectors were mainly hornet's nests of false data, greed and inefficiency. Many of us young idealists longed desparately for something better.

2. The Orgs were staffed with many very fine people who believed in what they were doing and were dedicated, sincere and were willing to sacrifice creature comforts and personal security and devote their lives to a system which they thought would greatly enhance mankind.

3. The early tech which we all were introduced to seemed to work for many of us. We would do exactly what Hubbard said to do, the meter would react as he said it would and either we as pc's had what appeared to be a life changing epiphamy or we, as auditors, witnessed another have a similar epiphany. This is very, very powerful empirical evidence that what Hubbard was telling us was true.

4. We were part of a dedicated team of individuals and a lot of us made friendships and we did things together and that is where the fun came in. Obviously to work for $10 or $20 a week we had to believe we were getting something of it and what we got was fun and the sense of helping others.

5. Some of us are still successfully using some of the techniques we learned to this day and that is another reason we do not dismiss the entire subject as 100% evil.
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

Yes, Ted, I do. The "fair tax" as structured still manages to shift the tax burden away from those with the most disposable discretionary income (i.e. "the wealthy") to those with far less ddi.

Because of the income subsidies the poorest do get off "lightly", but then they haven't any money to start with. However, the "fair tax" is still regressive in its effects on the working & middle classes, whereas high income individuals with the highest ddi can readily avoid taxation on the bulk of their incomes.

It's a "lovely thought", but really bad fiscal policy.


Mark A. Baker

On the contrary, it may be excellent fiscal policy.

The reason why federal spending is so high is that the people paying the bulk of the taxes are a minority of the electorate, while a large percentage of the electorate pays little or no federal income taxes, while getting benefits from federal programs.

If we eliminated progressive taxation, fewer people would be enthused about government spending.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I will disagree as completely with those who suggest that Scientology went 'off the rails' in 1963 as I will with those who insist that it wasn't until 1980, or, the newest version, sometime shortly before Marty blew.

From the outset the evolution of Scientology *should* have been obvious. No matter how much 'fun' it was. If how much 'fun' it was should be the criteria, well, there are a lot of things that are or were 'fun' for a while.

Zinj

You left out a key word, Z.

The ongoing 'debate', such as it is, is more about the exact point where the Co$ went "COMPLETELY off the rails".

There is much of value in the subject. It has been successfully used to assist thousands in achieving their own goals, both from early on to relatively late. Yet, the Co$ is also a highly destructive cult and has been for decades. The tension between those two propositions occasions the popularity of such speculative discussions.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Enthetan]

Who's Bob Eecker ?

I'm an Ozzie, I can name all the old cricketers . . . but this boring version of "rounders" is beyond me

So if Lakey wants Uecker, he can have him!

R

 

[Enthetan]

Some of us never bought in to that "kha khan" BS.

It's just another justifier used to defend the indefensible.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. I DO enjoy the irony associated with your specific use of the term, however.

Exactly. The message was, if you get the stats up, you can be as evil as you want to be, and crush people all you want.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Exactly. But it wasn't necessarily YOUR stats...it was the C of S's stats. If you helped put THEM in the winning valence by flowing 'power to power' you had a strong alliance that would back you up all the way. It could get as corrupt as the New Orleans police dept. You had their back and they had yours. But if you wanted to be in some winning roles for yourself and they weren't alligned with Scn's havingness you were considered off purpose and needed to find out who you really were. (conditon of existence formula) This whole upstat thing was a big lie from the very beginning.
One friend of mine divorced her husband while he was suffering with cancer and used up her kids trust funds from the grandparents and she was an upstat.
Another person gave up his whole life to do the FEBC and let everything take care of itself at home. Things fell apart and he got no more financial assistance and became a downstat with a family problem. Warped warped warped.

Once in a while I do a little process. "What would be a winning valence in this situation.?" What would I consider a winning valence's outcomes to be?" " What would another consider a winning valence's outcomes to be in this situation." This often leads to spotting what the postulates are about winning because otherwise I'm too lazy to care . What is considered an upstat I mean. I do this because sometimes I'm not competitive at all and I do not catch on to the fact that the game entails measured progress. Its interesting what comes up as another's consideration of what would be 'winning'.

One time I measured how much of a winner I would be if I deposited another few grand in my account at the org against how much of a winner I would be regarded as being if I got the new car and a nose job. I got much more lasting appreciation and admiration for the latter. It seemed I was only upstat until the org used up the money and then had to earn the status by repeating the former successful action of an advanced payment again. Preferably more than the previous AP. And the next one more than that one.