What's new
By:
Filters

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

lkwdblds said:
Yes, you makes some good points. Jews have a big cross to bear in that they have been persecuted throughout their history unlike any other group on the planet. It is sort of a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" dilemma. Are the Jews so defensive because they have been so heavily persecuted or is it the other way around.

One phrase which is frequently cited when discussing what turns people against the Jews is the phrase, "Jews are God's chosen people." A lot of non Jews have a problem with this phrase and resent its implications. Some Jews counter by insisting that the statement is true while others say that the phrase does not imply that Jews are chosen because they are better than others but it only implies that they were chosen by God to bring his message to the other peoples of the world.

One thing that contributed to my abandoning the Jewish religion when I was 20 had to do with some friends of my parents. They had only one child, a son named Sandy and they were constantly bragging about him every time they came over to visit. Their whole life revolved about the achievements of their son. Some time in the mid 50's, they told my parents that they were very upset because their son was seriously dating a non Jewish girl, a "shiksa". They said that they gave him an ultimatum that either he stop dating her or they would disown him. He went ahead and married her and they made good on their threat and completely disowned him.

They meant business and never once even mentioned his name again. I was about 16 when this occurred and I it made no sense to me. They loved their son, he loved then, he met a woman and fell in love with her. How could they then "disconnect" from their son. He had broken no laws but only followed his heart. It really let a bad taste in my mouth, mostly towards the parents but a little towards Judaism.
Lakey
Click to expand...


Errrr . . . . I thought only Christians were allowed to have "a cross to bear". Jews just have the hassle of being jewish and hhaving six hundred and something laws of God they have to follow. Which in itself makes it a hell of a chore to be jewish,
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril park said:
Miscommunication here.

Hassidem are clearly identifiable. In London.

Body structure?: Not by that in North London when I lived there. And I
see Hassidem ocasionaly here and there elsewhere. I feel an affinity above race/ religion but in seeking knowldge. Next time I see a Hassidem I'll talk to him.

Hassidem are the only " Orthodox" I ever interacted with.
Click to expand...

Interesting . . . .

That is not what I remember of London and parts of Europe. But for a real, stark example of physical distinction between body types and dress codes, come to NYC :yes:

Oh, PS: I know why you are having trouble with this distinction :biggrin: google your "Hassidem" and see what you come up with . . . . it seems you are either misspelling it or you're not talking about the Hasidim I'm talking about :biggrin::biggrin:

R
 
Wrong Thread Alert!

Auditor's Toad said:
Ah, the thread where all is smooth with nothing but unicorns & butterflies.
Click to expand...

I regret that I have to tell you this.

You, obviously, have made a simple mistake.

The Apollo thread is not smooth with unicorns and butterflies.

That is the Good Twin's Boobs thread.

The Apollo thread is about warm fuzzy bunnies.

Please correct your Rolodex notes.
 
A Twist on a Popular Phrase

There is a saying here in the US.

"Read 'em and weep."

I haven't the derivation. Usually it said when playing poker, and the person saying it has a better hand than the others.

Today, in a farmers' market styled store, I saw the employees' t shirts said, "Weed 'em and reap."
Sent from my iPhone
 
Re: Wrong Thread Alert!

CarmeloOrchards said:
I regret that I have to tell you this.

You, obviously, have made a simple mistake.

The Apollo thread is not smooth with unicorns and butterflies.

That is the Good Twin's Boobs thread.

The Apollo thread is about warm fuzzy bunnies.

Please correct your Rolodex notes.
Click to expand...

OK. Warm fuzzy dust bunnies it is !

I do appreciate your helpful correction !
 
Tiffany Lamps from San Francisco Bar

SF bar's tiffany lamps could bring $2 million at auction



The original Tiffany lamps that lined the bar at Eddie Rickenbacker's pub in San Francisco are heading to a New York City auction house, where they are expected to bring more than $2 million, Christie's said Thursday.

All six of the table lamps and one Tiffany hanging chandelier will hit the auction block on June 14.

Eddie Rickenbacker's colorful proprietor, Norman Jay Hobday, died in February 2011. He is credited with inventing the "lemon drop" martini and the "fern bar," a term applied to another bar he had owned called Henry Africa because of all the hanging plants. Hobday later adopted Henry Africa as his own name.

His signature decor at Eddie Rickenbacker's included vintage motorcycles hanging from the ceiling and the Tiffany lamps.

He purchased his first Tiffany lamp at a 1993 auction, and kept them safe using "a low-tech security system," said Josh Holdeman, Christie's director of 20th century art, who met the bar owner in 2004.

"They were intertwined with all the high balls and low balls and the martini glasses and they were secured by a chain around which each had a padlock," he said.

Hobday had a great eye for finding the best and most popular designs created by Tiffany Studios.

"Every of the lamps that he bought are excellent examples of their pattern," Holdeman said. "The quality is extraordinarily high."

Hobday frequently could be found perched on what he called his "davenport," a couch near the bar's entrance that also served as his bed because the SoMa-district restaurant was also his home.

"He was a very eccentric, colorful character," who loved how the lamps made the bar light up with all the vibrant colors that came through the glass, Holdeman said. "He just felt they really made the entire place seem totally alive."

Their pre-sale estimates run from $30,000 to $700,000.

The crown jewel of the collection is a circa 1910 "Wisteria" leaded glass and bronze table lamp featuring saturated variations of purples, violets and blues. Next in line is a "Laburnum" lamp, an intricate design of laburnum flowers and leaves in bright yellows and greens and brown stems.


Story posted 2012.03.29 at 10:41 AM PDT
 
Last edited:
Re: Test Flight of Jeff Bezos rocket

CarmeloOrchards said:
He is the guy behind Amazon.com

Space travel, of the commercial variety, is just around the corner.
Click to expand...

Quick! Cue the Moody Bues:

"...and you can fly,
high as kite,
if you want to,

faster than light,
if you want to,
Speeding through the uiverse.
Thinking is the best way to travel..."

Jack
 
More Squirreling

**                                   ivy-subscribers-1
Started January 1997
Relaying positive communication to participants.
** from : http://worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-83.HTML

******************
But first something on nomenclature.  Different practices and people have used bits and pieces of Scientology, and in some cases used different terms for things we know.  Some times it was done to distance the practice from Scientology, that had in some places and times, a bad name.  Other times the person was forming his(her) own "thing", and sort of started afresh. Has the advantage of avoiding unpleasant associations, but the disadvantage of possibly confusing.

We had an instance last time I posted a bit of something, where the chapter was headed "Keys".  I suspect some one associated this with the word "keyin" from Scientology, whereas in my mind a key is something that opens a door, and what was being talked about, words which might open a door to an aspect of a persons case which was not resolving by direct Itsa (Itsa is definitely a Scientology word)

In this case, Unblocking  is not a Scientology word (to my knowledge) but it has been used in various places as a synonym to Prepchecking (or for something similar to prepchecking).  This is not the case here  - in fact the next exert from Flemming's work covers something nearer to prepchecking but called something else :)  One can be confused if one does not have hes eyes open.  ["hes" is my todays violation of the English language, a synonym for "his/her" - you might prefer to use "hir" , and I do not think there is an enforceable law against you doing so]

So, after that preamble, here is a further viewpoint on helping people.

***************************************




Unblocking

Unblocking is a list of keys that are useful to use in dialoguing to free up some kind of positive direction. They give a list of meaningful questions that the facilitator can ask that will naturally unblock the area.

What we start with is a positive intention or ability or area of life that isn't succeeding. The positive direction should be at least loosely identified or labeled. The item should be positive or causative, not negative or effect. "A happy marriage" or at least "marriage" rather than "a failed marriage". "Financial security" rather than "bankruptcy". "Playing the piano" rather than "Inability to play". The keys on the list are mostly factors that might hold down a positive outcome.

holding back
obstacles
resources
attempts
failures
consequences
udgments
inhibitions
obsessions
mistakes
anxiety
stopped
ignored
mis-understood
changed
suppressed
hidden
forgotten
protested
missing
accomplished
learning
agreements

The order is not particularly important.

Out of each key you construct a question. The exact wording depends a little bit on how the subject is addressed. It could be

"In regards to __ is there anything that you are holding back"
or

"Has anything been held back about __?"
or

"Are you holding yourself back concerning __?"
or

"Is somebody else holding something back about __?"

Get whatever the client has to say about it. Ask again as long as there are answers. Don't do it mechanically, you just need to get everything that is available. You can ask different versions of the question to cover all angles, or you can just ask:

"Is there anything else that is being held back about __?"

You can say it both in past tense or present tense. We are most interested in the present.

When one key is complete you go on to the next ones. Keys that don't seem interesting you just pass over quickly.

At any point along the way the subject might have been resolved and you would stop the questioning.

You might also uncover a more specific phenomenon that requires another technique. You might find that it really is an unwanted feeling and re-experiencing would be better. Or it is a polarity and polarity integration would be better. You would then switch to the appropriate technique. If the subject doesn't get resolved from that, you will come back and continue the list.

As mentioned, the way you word the unblocking questions depends on what you are working on and which angle seems most appropriate. But here is a sample, using the keys from above. It is just an example of one question for each to give you the idea:

"Is anything being held back about ___?"
"Are there any obstacles for ___ to happen?"
"What resources are available to use for ___?"
"What attempts are you making of ___?"
"Are you having any failures?"
"What would be the consequences of attaining ___?"
"Is anybody making judgments about ___?"
"Do you have any inhibitions concerning ___?"
"Are you obsessed with ___?"
"Are you making any mistakes concerning ___?"
"Do you have any anxiety about ___?"
"Are you being stopped from doing ___?"
"Is anything about ___ being ignored?"
"Is anything mis-understood about ___?"
"Has anything been changed about ___?"
"Are you suppressing anything about ___?"
"Is there anything hidden about ___?"
"Has anything been forgotten about ___?"
"Are you protesting anything about ___?"
"Are you missing anything about ___?"
"Are you accomplishing something with ___?"
"What are you learning from ___?"
"Do you have any agreements about ___?"





************************************************************************************
Whole kaboosh at:
http://worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1TOP.HTML **
Originations, comments, to the list, send to [email protected]
Home Page: http://www.ivymag.org with extensive links to FZ!
**
 
From today's NY Times. Groucho Lives by Dick Cavett

Dick Cavett on his career in show business, and more.
TAGS:

COMEDY, GROUCHO MARX, WRITING
For the Groucho Marx fans of this column who continue to plead for more, the information contained herein, if new to you, might just make your day.

There are two very different books out, both of which are musts to grace the bookshelves of the Groucho addict: Robert Bader’s “Groucho Marx and Other Short Stories and Tall Tales: Selected Writings of Groucho Marx” and Steve Stoliar’s “Raised Eyebrows: My Years Inside Groucho’s House.”

Those who may have read these books when they first appeared need not feel left out. Both are updated and expanded editions. Both contain abundant new stuff.


Paramount Pictures
Groucho Marx in the 1933 film “Duck Soup.”
Woody Allen has said that of the greats, Groucho had the richest number of gifts. He could sing, dance and act, and beyond those fairly common gifts, when you add the distinctive voice, faultless instinct for wording, genius wit, hilarious physical movement, rich supply of expressions and physical “takes” — and the list goes on — it arguably adds up to the most supremely gifted comedian of our time.

And there’s one thing more. He could write. A born scribe. And many a Groucho fan is unaware of the degree to which this was true.

This problem has been put to bed by Bader’s book. (Full disclosure: I know Rob from the masterful job he did putting together the “Dick Cavett Show” DVD sets.) Bader, too, can write, and in a fresh, humorous, scholarly and entertaining way, with shrewd analysis and observations about the products of Groucho’s pen and typewriter.

If your reaction to this is, “So what did he write?” this book holds the answer. In his early years, and aside from his books, Groucho’s written pieces appeared widely, including in the beloved magazine College Humor and, yes, The New Yorker. Bader has found and retrieved priceless specimens of Groucho’s impressively large output from all over, some of the pieces early enough to have been bylined “Julius H. Marx,” Groucho’s vrai nom. Open the book to any page and try not to laugh.

Prime among the delights for me are speeches Groucho gave at colleges and elsewhere through the years. As you read them, it’s almost like having him present. So tone-perfect are these pieces that you can’t help hearing the famous voice and its witty inflections in your mind’s ear. It’s a wonder.

A Marx Brothers fanatic virtually from birth, Bader is an intrepid researcher and gets stuff nobody’s got. For another, coming book, he can be found one day in the Lincoln Center Library or, on another, in local newspaper files in, say, Red Oak, Iowa, sleuthing out yellowing, local Marx Brothers clippings, reviews and material from their vaudeville days.

Groucho preferred the company of writers to that of actors. In Los Angeles, when he took me to the Hillcrest Country Club for lunch, he steered us past a table of beckoning movie faces to the writers’ table, where I met fabled “names” from a lifetime of reading screen credits. He told me once, “I’d rather be known as an author and remembered for my writing than for all the rest of it.” (He told others that, too, of course.) He was immensely proud of having been a houseguest of his pen pal T. S. Eliot. The only problem, he said, was that Eliot kept addressing Groucho’s then-wife, Eden, as “Mrs. Groucho.”

Groucho was a well-read, well-educated man (the “self-” method) and the only 9th-grade dropout I ever met who had read all of Iris Murdoch’s novels. I think he was quietly delighted when I, with my (envied) Yale degree, had to confess to having read not one.

Steve Stoliar, while still college-age, was part of the successful campaign to force the 1974 re-release of “Animal Crackers,” the Marxes’ 1930 film, then inexplicably in mothballs and in danger of being lost, deteriorated and forgotten. This brought him to Groucho’s attention. Sufficiently impressed by Steve’s knowledge of the world of Marx, Groucho offered him a job and he “woke up” inside his hero’s house, transformed from mere fan into archivist, general amanuensis and companion to his personal god. A dream that he hadn’t dared to dream had come true. How many of us can say that?

“Raised Eyebrows” is an invigorating read. A gulping Stoliar got used to opening the front door to a who’s who of the arts and letters: S. J. Perelman, Bob Hope, Steve Allen, Morrie Ryskind, Jack Lemmon, George Burns and many more cherished friends.

Guests, after dinner, were treated to a cabaret with their host by the piano singing, with perfect pitch, “Lydia, the Tattooed Lady” “Father’s Day,” “Show Me a Rose,” “Omaha, Nebraska (In the Foothills of Tennessee)” and other favorites, often with Marvin Hamlisch volunteering at the keyboard.

“Raised Eyebrows” could easily have been written as a delightful memoir only. It is that, but much more. There’s no way Stoliar could have avoided dealing with the rhino in the room: the enigmatic, half-mad Erin Fleming, the young woman who came into Groucho’s life at a crucial time and who became, in a complex and bizarre way, his Lady Macbeth. As you’ll see, she was equally adept at doing wondrous things for Groucho, and appalling ones.

Depending on whom you ask, she was either the best or worst thing that could have happened to the aging star, who provided her a pass into a world of fame and the big time that she could never have otherwise achieved. In my view, she was both: the worst and the best. Young and pretty and vivacious when Groucho met her, Erin and her ambition worked — some would say wormed — their way into his home and she became, in effect, his life-manager. Her story as told by Stoliar is the stuff of one swell hair-raising novel or movie.

On the plus side, she got Groucho up and out of near despair at a time when he was feeling forgotten. (A woman who lived near Groucho described how, in a deeply lonely period of his life following a divorce, he would walk his dog in front of his neighbors’ homes, hoping, she said, to be invited in for a drink, a visit or a meal. That gets to me.)

Another paradox about Groucho was the contrast between his claim to be shocked by the dirty talk and material of the 1960s and ’70s and his own propensity for the hilarious, filthy remark.

“I don’t belong in this age,” he said once on my show, where he also discussed the Broadway musical “Hair” and its then-shocking nudity. “I was going to go buy a ticket,” Groucho said, “but I went back to my hotel room, took off my clothes, looked at myself in the mirror and saved eight dollars.” (He’d have saved a lot more today.) Would-be comedy writers: Note the perfect ad-lib wording, syllable count and cadence.

Bader did some bowdlerizing of Groucho’s stuff in the original edition of his book, and has kicked himself for it. In the interval he decided to restore everything, feeling it was not his duty to deny the reader Groucho unadulterated. (Congratulate me for not using the phrase “letting it all hang out.”)

Did I mention that both books are updated from previous versions and that both contain enough rich new stuff to delight the heart and mind of the earlier reader? Stoliar’s update on Erin Fleming re-visits the old question about whether she eventually attained the state of genuine madness.

Long-memoried viewers of Ted Koppell’s “Nightline,” on the very night the verdict in the crazy “Erin Fleming vs. Bank of America” trial came down against her (there is much to Google on this case), would not need a degree in psychiatry to diagnose what appeared to be someone certifiably unhinged. Imagine the lack of charm and appeal it would take to cause a jury to decide against a young woman, in favor of so revered an institution as a bank! At one point, news-coverage viewers of the trial got to see Fleming point across the courtroom and shriek at a Bank of America attorney, “That man murdered Groucho Marx!”

Stoliar’s update section also includes some fascinating information about Erin’s mystery-enshrouded demise.

The truth is, Marx devotees will need to get both books. And if you’re not a devotee, get them anyway. Fix a drink, light a fire (I won’t add “only if you have a fireplace”), put one book on each side of you and dip alternately. There are so many worse ways you could spend your time.

Trying as usual to think of how to close this off, a problem Groucho never had in his letters, I remembered an example. He once ended:

Well, Richard (I’d say “Dick” but my secretary is a spinster), I’m running out of things to say. And they should be running out of me.
Anyway, good-bye ’til hell freezes over. And if you’ve read this far, there’s something wrong with you.
Groucho
 
Real Estate deal in SoCal

I'm in Pomona for a week doing a little work.

As background, I've done real estate since I was 12.

I looked at a house today. Owned by the city. All fixed up. Selling for $180K ... BUT the city will grant as much as $50K to the purchase, and they will do 2% down.

A roommate, paying rent, could pay the mortgage. 

Are there any exes, that you know of, who might find this as attractive?

It is such a sweet deal I just hate to not get the opportunity for some struggling person out.

Sent from my iPod
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What's With President Obama?

President Obama responded with vitriol about how some of the Supreme Court Justices reacted and responded to his "Obama Care" government mandated health care program.

I could not believe what he was saying but before I discuss that, I would like to post a youtube video which was made in January which was a precursor to what he said today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmKfpZW6nqA&feature=fvst

I find it absolutely unbelievable that Pres. Obama would talk so negatively about Supreme Court Justices right right in front of a special joint session where the the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court Justices were all in attendance.

Today, he made some additional remarks. The essence of his remarks had to do with his criticizing the Supreme Court Justices for negative comments they made concerning his health care bill. Here are a portion of today's remarks:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...onference-with-leaders-of-mexico-canada/1?csp

He looks hurt while making these remarks though he appears genuinely concerned about poor people finally receiving the health care that is due them. The quote above is not the entire speech. He also makes mention that the justices are not elected and it would be unprecendented for them to shoot down a piece of legislation which was properly approved by congress, all of whose members are elected. This echoes remarks made by Senator Harry Reed, criticizing Supreme Court Justices because they are not elected.

He conveniently makes no mention that the constitution calls for Supreme Court Justices to be appointed and not elected and that he has appointed some of them himself.

He makes no mention that their main duty is to make sure that all laws passed by Congress are constitutional - they have a responsibility to ensure that no unconstitutional laws get through.

He also makes no mention that the plaiintiffs opposing Obamacare are the governments of 28 of the states of the USA, all of which believe fervently that portions of "Obamacare" are unconstitutional.

He makes no mention that only the Democrats voted to approve the bill and not even one Republican in the House or Senate voted for the bill! Furthermore, current polling in the USA shows that the bill is not wanted by a significant portion of the US public.

Also, at 2,700 pages, it appears that not even one member of congress has read the entire bill and all those who have tried to read it claim that the bill is not comprehendable. No one seems to really know the actual detailed provisions contained in this massive piece of legislation.

Anyone who objects to the US Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of a massive piece of legislation, objected to by 28 States, the majority of US citizens and which involves 1/7th of the entire US economy is certainly not for the United States Constitution and the US form of government. Such a person is more in favor of some sort of monarchy where one "strongman" makes all the decisions

Based on the speech of President Obama's which I posted above and his speech of today, President Obama falls into this category and he fancies himself as some sort of dictator rather than the democratically elected President of a republic.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top