What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gottabrain

Guest
The VW story is a great one, Lakey. I enjoyed it. And I hope you've been in touch with Yvonne more recently than the CCLA days, since you've both become so much wiser about the world since then. (I can't see her as ever being very interested in VWs or other cars, though..heh heh).

Cool that even then you had other interests and a broader view. Some of us got much more sucked in than others, for whatever reasons. When I went in, I had no interest in history so barely paid attention to it in any of my education. Now, I'm keen to know the background info on just about anything, so I appreciate when people on here share that sort of thing.

One of the things I love the most about exscn and WWP are when people share their wealth of knowledge in different areas like you do.

Nightie night, it's late. :sleepy:

Sheila
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Thanks very much Ted!

Damn, Lakey. You are coming on strong. I like this new self on display, or maybe it's an old self reemerging. Anyway, you get thumbs up. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Thanks Ted, your ack means a lot to me! Also, I wanted to comment on your post just prior to that.....

I have long felt that a lifetime should be viewed--by me of course--as a work of art. That makes the following question from the above referenced web page worthy of consideration:

If my life is my message...what kind of message am I sending?

I believe I have a worthy message. The question remains, how do I bring it to market?


Ted, you have written a large volume of incredible posts. At various times, you were practically driving the Apollo '73 thread on your own. How does one bring it to market?

I don't have the full answer. LRH was successful, as have been countless others, by bringing a popular book to market. You have the makings of a tremendous book in the hundreds of quality posts which you have made on this thread alone. We all probably need to network with someone to get our message out. Svetka, here on this board, aka Tatiana, is one person who might be able to help you. She has tremendous computer skills and could probably help you compile and organize your posts and then get it out to the public, perhaps in book form or perhaps it could be in an art form, such as a collection of poems, essays and the like.

On me coming on stronger, there are several factors taking place. It is definitely a new emergence and not a re-emergence. Just looking at it, one of the factors has been becoming a very close friend with Candy Swanson. She really "thinks" outside the box. Some of the stuff which she says initially causes me to recoil in total disagreement but then I reflect on it, see how it is that way and isn't that way and I usually, but not always, end up seeing things her way. This has pushed the boundaries of my space out further.

Another thing was when I was disliked by several board members in general and you in particular, I decided to change my M.O.. I remember writing a retraction to Roger concerning a post where I accepted Leon's opinion on Alan Walter being a total spin off from LRH at face value without checking it out.

I retracted my earlier statement and admitted that I was not qualified to make that judgement. I mentioned to Roger and the board that you'all would see a better quality of posting from me from that point on.

Finally, I am getting a 2 to 3 hour session weekly from Candy and am also administering and scoring PCA tests for her. When one gives a PCA test and scores it and goes over it with someone, there seems to be case gain available for all parties. It is a great way to outflow help to people and help oneself.

Putting these 3 factors together seems to have moved me to a new level where I think before acting and think deeper than before with the boundaries of my space being significantly extended from what they were 4 to 6 weeks ago.

Anyway, thanks for noticing and I appreciate your acknowledement
Lakey
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks Ted, your ack means a lot to me! Also, I wanted to comment on your post just prior to that.....

I have long felt that a lifetime should be viewed--by me of course--as a work of art. That makes the following question from the above referenced web page worthy of consideration:

If my life is my message...what kind of message am I sending?

I believe I have a worthy message. The question remains, how do I bring it to market?


Ted, you have written a large volume of incredible posts. At various times, you were practically driving the Apollo '73 thread on your own. How does one bring it to market?

I don't have the full answer. LRH was successful, as have been countless others, by bringing a popular book to market. You have the makings of a tremendous book in the hundreds of quality posts which you have made on this thread alone. We all probably need to network with someone to get our message out. Svetka, here on this board, aka Tatiana, is one person who might be able to help you. She has tremendous computer skills and could probably help you compile and organize your posts and then get it out to the public, perhaps in book form or perhaps it could be in an art form, such as a collection of poems, essays and the like.

On me coming on stronger, there are several factors taking place. It is definitely a new emergence and not a re-emergence. Just looking at it, one of the factors has been becoming a very close friend with Candy Swanson. She really "thinks" outside the box. Some of the stuff which she says initially causes me to recoil in total disagreement but then I reflect on it, see how it is that way and isn't that way and I usually, but not always, end up seeing things her way. This has pushed the boundaries of my space out further.

Another thing was when I was disliked by several board members in general and you in particular, I decided to change my M.O.. I remember writing a retraction to Roger concerning a post where I accepted Leon's opinion on Alan Walter being a total spin off from LRH at face value without checking it out.

I retracted my earlier statement and admitted that I was not qualified to make that judgement. I mentioned to Roger and the board that you'all would see a better quality of posting from me from that point on.

Finally, I am getting a 2 to 3 hour session weekly from Candy and am also administering and scoring PCA tests for her. When one gives a PCA test and scores it and goes over it with someone, there seems to be case gain available for all parties. It is a great way to outflow help to people and help oneself.

Putting these 3 factors together seems to have moved me to a new level where I think before acting and think deeper than before with the boundaries of my space being significantly extended from what they were 4 to 6 weeks ago.

Anyway, thanks for noticing and I appreciate your acknowledement
Lakey


About getting the "work of art" out, I am referring to the lifetime as a whole. Even if the "art" is a work in progress, pieces of it can go to market. By market I mean simply getting the image(s) out for view, and, hopefully, others would find value in the viewing. Should there be money connected to that? In a society driven by the dollar, enough money to have and freely move about is highly desirable. But there are other forms of income that are just as or even more valuable than money once the money thing has been satisfied. That's the psychic income I spoke of a few posts back.

Good on your new perspective. It looks like a good part of a success formula to me. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

FoTi

Crusader
The VW story is a great one, Lakey. I enjoyed it. And I hope you've been in touch with Yvonne more recently than the CCLA days, since you've both become so much wiser about the world since then. (I can't see her as ever being very interested in VWs or other cars, though..heh heh).

Sheila

GB....Yvonne has been dead for over 33 years.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
What's WWP?

The VW story is a great one, Lakey. I enjoyed it. And I hope you've been in touch with Yvonne more recently than the CCLA days, since you've both become so much wiser about the world since then. (I can't see her as ever being very interested in VWs or other cars, though..heh heh).

Cool that even then you had other interests and a broader view. Some of us got much more sucked in than others, for whatever reasons. When I went in, I had no interest in history so barely paid attention to it in any of my education. Now, I'm keen to know the background info on just about anything, so I appreciate when people on here share that sort of thing.

One of the things I love the most about exscn and WWP are when people share their wealth of knowledge in different areas like you do.

Nightie night, it's late. :sleepy:

Sheila

Thanks for all the nice comm Sheila! You will have to tell me what WWP stands for. I do not get it just like I didn't know what Infinity meant by M & M.

One thing about me that is different from most Sea Org members and ex Sea Org members is that I did not get into Scn until I was 30, about 10 years older than most of my contemporaries got in. In those extra years during which I lived in the "WOG" world, I got a bachelors degree from a university and worked 8 years in the aerospace industry.

In aerospace, one meets some very bright people but often they are very eccentric. Brilliance in Mathematics and Science do not necessarily transfer to brilliance in living life. Nevertheless, I met with and worked with some very sharp scientists, mathematicians and engineers. By and large the were a pretty nice group of people, but they could not always transfer their math brilliance to being brilliant in living life successfully. Nevertheless, I rubbed elbows with this crowd enough to know that Hubbard was not the only person on Earth who could think straight and figure out problems.

I had then and still have a photographic memory type of mind that soaks up vast amounts of data, some of it vital but much of it extraneous and not really necessarty to know. I have several fields where I have a huge storehouse of knowledge. WWII is one such field and so is Germany. I feel a deep kinship with Germany and its people and culture. To me, it is a shame that Germany allowed the Nazi movement to arise and come to power within its borders. What a stain on an otherwise proud society and heritage.

Automotive companies and cars of the past have always intrigued me and I have a large collection of books on the subject. I love the now defunct American car companies who thrived in the 40's and early 50's and fell apart mostly in the late 50's. The Packard was our answer to Mercedes, the Hudson was totally American, weirdly styled and built like a bank vault, it was far ahead of other makers in handling and roadability and had perhaps the best 6 cylinder engine ever mass produced but it fell victim to not having a V8 engine, which was necessary to succeed in the late 1950's.

The Nash was perhaps the most comfortable ride on the market. Seats that converted into beds, good Kelvinator air conditioning and unusual styling as well. Their interior foot room, etc. was almost that of a limo.

The Studebaker was the most storied American brand. Starting in 1947, they had the best looking mass produced family cars in the world, miles ahead of anyone else. Their styling peaked in 1953 with an utterly timeless European like design. In the late 50's they brought out their Hawk series with timeless styling and a huge Packard engine. They maintained styling leadership with their world class Avanti design, even as the company started to fall apart. The funny thing was that they had not only excellent styling but their engines and engineering were fully competitive with the Big 3 car makers as well. It was partly poor management which did them in, a price war between Ford and Chevy in 1954 started their demise.

There were a few maverick American car companies as well. First was Willys Overland, they continued making WWII Jeeps and jeep like offshoots on into the 1950's. Few remember but they had a terrific little compact family car called the Aero-Willys produced from 1951 to 1954. That car was very, very well designed and engineered. Had GM or Ford brought it out, it would have taken the country by storm. Willys sold out their automotive interests to Kaiser-Frazer Corportation in 1953; the sell out included the Jeep division of Willys.

Kaiser-Frazer was the real American Maverick. The early styling was ahead of the pack but not as good as Studebakers'. They did one redesign in 1951 which I think is beautiful although not everyone likes it. They struggled on through 1954 before abandoning the U.S. car Market in 1955. Kaiser continued on with Jeeps all the way through until 1971 which not many people know. I did not know this until about 10 years ago. In 1971, Kaiser sold its Jeep division to American Motors which evolved from a merger between Nash and Hudson in 1954.

American Motors Corp continued the Jeep all the way until 1987 when Chrysler bought out AMC. Since then, Jeeps have been made by Chrysler. Chrysler has been struggling lately but their Jeep Division has kept them afloat. If Chrysler were to go under, I am sure there would be a lot of buyers for its Jeep Division.

The Jeep brand has been a big hit for every company which has owned it: there is Willys Overland, Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, American Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation and Daimler-Chrysler. The brand has been a success for every manufacture who has owned that brand. Jeep is an American icon. Probably most people don't know what company makes Jeeps but they just go in to buy a Jeep.

So there you have it, a post WWII summary of American car companies other than the Big 3 of GM, Ford and Chrysler.

Here is a link to an ad for the 1953 Aero Willys Lark:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...e=1&ndsp=7&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&biw=802&bih=417


Lakey
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
I used to own a bathtub Porsche. The engine (1600) was very much like a beetle engine. What can you tell us about those two Ferry Porsche designs?

I don't know much. I know that in 1948, Ferdinand Porche, the father built the first Porche sports car which had that classic bath tub design. Ferry began working with his Father starting immediately after WWII. I do not think Ferry worked with his dad during the war. Ferdinand got carried up in designing tanks for Hitler's army. I doubt very much if Ferry participated in that but I am not sure.

In the mid 1930's, the elder Porche came to Detroit with a team of German auto men to study U.S. manufacturing techniques. They were smitten with the design of the Chryler - De Soto Airflow models and chose this design to serve as the basis for their new Volkswagen!

Below is a link to show what the Airflow looked like!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...e=1&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0&biw=612&bih=300

The VW Beetle was lifted right from the Airflow as you can see. The primary difference is in the VW's sloping hood because the engine is in the back. In the 1934 Airflow, a long straight 8 or straight 6 engine was in the front so the hood could not slope. Other than that, the VW and the Airflow show virtually the same styling.

The Porche bathtub is then just a sporty reconfiguration of the VW sedan design. It looks as if a VW of clay was pressed on gently but firmly by a powerful press and the VW got lower and wider and started to look like a Porche. The VW had good aerodynamics for a sedan so the Porche's just wanted a lower profile and better aerodynamics for their VW derived sports car. So in reality, the first Porche sports cars were initially derived from the 1934 Chrysler and De Soto Airflows. How ironic that is!!
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
I am, apparently, having a small little flame war on another thread.
Since no other thread is read like this one, here is a pointer to my most recent post.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=541310#post541310

I thought I made a good observation. I like others to read it and comment. here , preferably.


The Carmello Fello wrote: "In the United States, when Bill Clinton was President, there was a move by the opposition party to get him thrown out of office. Two successive Speakers of the House were forced to resign. Both of them had worked at opposing Bill Clinton. Bill had gotten blow jobs in his White House office. The Speakers of the House each had to resign their membership in Congress because of their own extra marital affairs. My contention is that acting as an 'anti' anything merely empowers the opposition, and it weakens one's own foundation."

El Rum Tubbard wrote, "A negative postulate is the postulate to not be. It cancels past postulates and it also cancels, in greater or lesser degree, the entire individual. (AP&A)" Someone says, "I know your type. You are a Scientologists! (redneck, liberal-progressive, John Bircher, Neo-Con, wife beater, cock sucker, etc.)" Any denial is a setup to postulate against yourself. In truth, or maybe that should be capital "TRUTH," a being has the potential to be anything. Why go into denial over your very nature?

As a response when in heated debate with a known idiot, I like to agree with its perceptions: "Yes, of course I am a (redneck, liberal-progressive, John Bircher, Neo-Con, wife beater, cock sucker, etc.). What's your point?

Find out the nature of the complaint then TR-3 your own point that likely had little or nothing to do with the debater's assertion.

And keep in mind Mr. Baker's quote below:
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
I am, apparently, having a small little flame war on another thread.
Since no other thread is read like this one, here is a pointer to my most recent post.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=541310#post541310

I thought I made a good observation. I like others to read it and comment. here , preferably.


P.S. You are such a good person that a slight rise in temperature of, say, one degree appears to you as a flame war. I read the posting. That ain't no flame. 'Taint even warm bath water. :yes:
 

FoTi

Crusader
I am, apparently, having a small little flame war on another thread.
Since no other thread is read like this one, here is a pointer to my most recent post.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=541310#post541310

I thought I made a good observation. I like others to read it and comment. here , preferably.

I understand what you said. Obviously some others don't. They are living from their viewpoint and their experience with life.....you are living from yours. You seem to have an ability to do this.....they don't seem to have that same ability. Not having an ability that someone else has can be very frustrating and can make one antagonistic or hostile toward the one who does have the ability. And sometimes one who has the ability can't understand or see why the other person doesn't have that ability or why they can't see that it's possible. Differences in abilities, experience and realities create problems with communication and understanding one another, and build up charge. Such is my view of this life that we are living. That's my take on what's happening on that other thread.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
^^^:clap::clap::clap:

Lakey, you're an awesome history buff. Great post. Moooore please!

Be carefull of what you wish for!

"The factory was offered to British car makers and they did not want it. "

Sadly.

Later "Hillman " a brit car manufacturer at some later point taken over by
Chrysler manufactured its own " People's Car" The Hillman Imp. It also had a rear engine. Originally a " Coventry Climax" fire engine pump, all aluminum
hi revving and very susceptible for high power tuning. I believe the first all aluminum engine sold in a production car. IIRC formally used in racing. It was breakthrough in other areas in that it was in some sense the first "hatchback". If you have such a term in the US. I had one. really good handling, and I drove it like crazy and in its time a very successful rally car.

Because of its " Hatchback" status, my then wife and I traveling and holidaying in Cornwall could fold down the rear seats and camp, sleep, perchance to make love in it.

Thats what a " peoples car is REALLY all about. :)

More history for the buffs. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillman_Imp
 
... Just looking at it, one of the factors has been becoming a very close friend with Candy Swanson. She really "thinks" outside the box. Some of the stuff which she says initially causes me to recoil in total disagreement but then I reflect on it, see how it is that way and isn't that way and I usually, but not always, end up seeing things her way. This has pushed the boundaries of my space out further. ...

Candy's is a very stimulating presence. :yes:


Mark A. Baker
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Thanks for the Hillman Imp story!

Be carefull of what you wish for!

"The factory was offered to British car makers and they did not want it. "

Sadly.

Later "Hillman " a brit car manufacturer at some later point taken over by
Chrysler manufactured its own " People's Car" The Hillman Imp. It also had a rear engine. Originally a " Coventry Climax" fire engine pump, all aluminum
hi revving and very susceptible for high power tuning. I believe the first all aluminum engine sold in a production car. IIRC formally used in racing. It was breakthrough in other areas in that it was in some sense the first "hatchback". If you have such a term in the US. I had one. really good handling, and I drove it like crazy and in its time a very successful rally car.

Because of its " Hatchback" status, my then wife and I traveling and holidaying in Cornwall could fold down the rear seats and camp, sleep, perchance to make love in it.

Thats what a " peoples car is REALLY all about. :)

More history for the buffs. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillman_Imp

I knew that Chrysler took a brief foray into ownership in the British market in the 1960's. GM had a huge German arm, the Opel, and Ford had a large arm featuring the Taunus and other models. Chrysler wanted to play suit and go international so they bought Sunbeam, I believe it was, in England. They did build in Canada, of course, but they wanted the overseas type of International Company.

I remember ads for the Sunbeam Alpine sports car under the Chysler banner in the 60's. The Chrysler venture in England did not get too far and then they sold out. Did they sell Sunbeam to the British or was it a French company which bought it up.

I do remember the Hillman Minx, perhaps in the early 50's. Before VW started to get big in the US marketplace, the British sold the only foreign cars you would see in the USA except perhaps for a handful of exotic Italian sports cars.

The MG and the Jaguar were probably the two biggest import sellers in the US. Also sold were the Morgan, the Hillman Minx and I believe the Sunbeam. I have a picture of the Hillman Minx in my mind and know what they look like so they must have been sold here when I was a kid.

Minx is a catchy name for a compact car. A guy could buy a Minx as his first car, move up to a Mercury Cougar and then when he was a yuppy and was making big money, he could move up to a Jaguar. Such a kid would be a very Kool Kat!

NEW REALIZATION!!
Lots of car lines are named for cats but none have ever been named for dogs. Why is that? Why, there could be a VW Dachshund or a Buick Bulldog. The Chevrolet Cocker Spaniel as not good for obvious reasons.

YIKES I DO REMEMBER A CAR THAT WAS NAMED FOR A DOG IN THE EARLY 1930, THE WILLYS WHIPPET! Whippets are sleek and quick, almost cat like. How about the Dodge Greyhound, that might make sense?

Here is something more on Willys, containing mention of the Whippet:

"The Short Flight of Aero Willys

The name “Willys” conjures up thoughts of Jeeps and their many variations, not ordinary passenger cars. This is despite the fact that the Jeep’s ancestor, the Overland, was second only to Ford from 1912 to 1918, and that until World War II Willys trucks were relatively rare. The company’s Whippet was the third-best selling car in 1928, and in 1933 all large cars like the Willys-Knights were ditched in favor of the compact and low-priced Willys 77, which progressed through several stages, the last of which were called “Americar.” Trucks during this period comprised pickup versions of the cars.

After the war, Willys had hopes of returning to cars. In fact, some attractive designs were penned by designer Brooks Stevens and a prototype sedan was built. However, the difficulties of resuming production dictated concepts that were simple to manufacture, and so the perpendicular wagons (another Stevens design)were the closest thing to cars to emanate from the Toledo factories. Later on, of course, came the sporty Jeepster, a passenger car for sure.

Model year 1952 marked Willys-Overland’s return to cars. Styled by Phil Wright, whose prior art included the Pierce Silver Arrow and the 1935 Ford, and engineer Clyde Paton, the new Aero model was a small (108-inch wheelbase) unibody car with lots of interior room. There were three series, entry-level Lark, mid-range Wing and top-of-the-line Ace, the latter with a wrap-around rear window. An Eagle hardtop coupe was added in mid-year, with its own upmarket interior. Powered by the Willys 161 cid six-cylinder engines (L-head in the Lark, F-head in Wing and Ace), the cars were decent performers, and cheaper, though less well appointed, than Nash’s Rambler.

For 1953, a Falcon series was added above Lark, and four-door models became available in all series. In 1954, cars got new taillights and bumper guards. The Falcon was dropped and Deluxe, Custom and Special trim levels were added.

Willys Motors was acquired by Henry J. Kaiser during 1953. Kaiser was mostly after the Jeeps, but a spiffed-up Aero was trotted out for 1955, the hardtop now called “Bermuda.” After some 6,000 cars were sold the dies were shipped to Brazil, where, with new Brooks Stevens sheet metal, production continued until 1972. Thereafter, however, the closest thing to a passenger car to emanate from Willys in the USA was the Wagoneer."

Lakey (The story on Willys is not by me. I Googled it and cut and pasted it here.)
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
IMHO - The thing that does the postulating has no mass, wavelength, location, space nor time but it is the creator of these things. It is outside the universe of matter, energy, space and time but for the purposes of playing a game can consider itself to be inside or outside that which it has created. Taking up your last clause above, "what would there be to consider or postulate upon?" Well, it postulates precisely upon those things which it has created! It is not made up of those things, it creates them and then postulates on what it has created.

True, the concept is a little tricky but it is not rocket science.

That's an awful lot of dubbing in. Are you saying that, INYO, the so-called "static" in Axiom 1 is a noun akin to "creator"? I can go with that, but only so far. It immediately raises the question: how can anything be created from nothing? Even a poet needs a language yet, in the absence of time, there can be no language because meaning comes from context and context requires time. Axiom 1 also cannot escape the God question, specifically; where did the "static" come from, who created your "creator" and where is this place you describe as outside of the MEST universe? Nowhere in the Axioms is the universe outside of MEST mentioned. And, these are Axioms, remember, they are supposed to be self-evident truths. If they were called Articles of Faith, I could understand.

You're right, though, its not rocket science; there's nothing scientific about it at all.

Of course my belief system allows others to believe what they wish so long as it doesn't harm others. It also allows questioning and exploring. Does yours?
 
That's an awful lot of dubbing in. Are you saying that, INYO, the so-called "static" in Axiom 1 is a noun akin to "creator"? ...

The basic difficulty is that you are attempting to argue about scientology without actually being aware of what scientology entails. The word static as commonly used in scientology is a noun. It's meaning is specific to scientology and can not be identified from a non-scientology dictionary.

Or, to put the above in words you may better understand: lurk moar.


Mark A. Baker :eyeroll:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
The basic difficulty is that you are attempting to argue about scientology without actually being aware of what scientology entails. The word static as commonly used in scientology is a noun. It's meaning is specific to scientology and can not be identified from a non-scientology dictionary.

Yeah, I know. Scientology would be nothing if it didn't have its own language which encapsulates concepts unique to itself. Dissecting the language is an interesting exercise in exposing the unconsidered assumptions which carry the subject. Still, even you have gotta admit, redefining common words to mean something completely different is hardly conducive to an axiomatic approach.

So far as "static" is concerned, I can accept that it is analogous with "creator" or "spirit" or whatever, but I then run into the logic fallacies - basically non sequitur - in regard to the "static" being able to consider and postulate. And that's just with the first axiom. Consider Axiom 2: "The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions." How can anything have an opinion about anything in the presence of nothing to have an opinion about? No one needs to lurk moar to run into that flaw. As an axiom it is miles away from being a self-evident truth.

Lets go back to my first example which doesn't require any redefinition of terms or Scientology understanding: "space is a viewpoint of dimension". Here we have the term "space" being defined by only two of its many constituent parts. As I said before, its exactly the same as saying: "a car is a steering-wheel of a brake-pedal", i.e., meaningless.

As an aside, have you noticed a correlation between the so-called Axioms and the theory of General Semantics? Are the axioms, perhaps, another example of L Ron Hubbard's plagiarism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top