iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?

[Smilla]

Except you, in a response to me. Not that I care about it one way or the other really, I think it was just for rhetorical effect, I consider that we were both just squabbling.
But that is how the "attacking" thing got started.

I was waiting for that penny to drop, but you got there first.

That makes me feel attacked, indignificated, and ad hominidated.

 

[Dulloldfart]

This is easily explained. There were actually three separate L. Ron Hubbards, each with a distinct and separate personality.

Filbert is a real nut.

Paul

 

[HoraciotheOT8]

Filbert is a real nut.

Paul

No nuts no squirrels, no squirrels no trees,
No trees no branchs, no branchs no leaves,

No leaves no shade, no shade, no light,
May long live our nuts, all through the night.

Spiritually speaking (of course).

much love,
Horacio

pot kettle black. Iam.

 

[Caroline]

Interestingly, it appears Steve Hall (Thoughtful) anticipated this line of attack by defining Standard Tech as including only "red on white":http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/iscientology-org/#comment-233547

The above HCOPL in the OEC is a "green on white," and thus according to Steve Hall NOT part of Standard Tech.

I have previously seen this technique used by Independent Scientologists who are caught between: (1) trying to uphold, defend and maintain KSW; and (2) avoid the more unsavory and unacceptable things that Ron said, instructed, etc. That is, to define such things as outside "Standard Tech." In this case, Steve Hall attempts to do this by defining "Standard Tech" as including only "red on white" -- i.e., HCOBs.

I fully anticipate the critical response will be to find and publish objectionable HCOBs -- i.e., examples of "red on white."

I have seen this meme among Scientologists seeking to save Hubbard's "reputation" from his unsavory writings, and at best it's ignorant. The following basic staff hatting material shows the relationship between "admin tech" and the rest of Hubbard's tech.

There is a way to do something right. The right ways to do things are called TECHNICAL PROCEDURES or TECH when it comes to auditing or scientific or mechanical processes.

There is a TECH of ADMIN. This would be the right ways to do administrative actions or organize something.

Administration is the subject of how to organize or establish or correct the spaces, terminals, flows, line duties, equipment, materiel, and so forth of a production group so as to establish optimum volume, quality and viability.

Activities, organizations, companies, governments and even man's civilization depend upon having the TECH of ADMIN and the knowledge and APPLICATION of it.

This general subject is known as ADMINISTRATION or ADMIN for short.

Hubbard, L. (1971, 4 June) Standard Admin. Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., Basic Staff Volume 0, pp. 58-60). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

The material contained in HCO BULLETINS applies to the FIRST DYNAMIC -self, the individual.

The data, material and procedures contained in POLICY LETTERS apply to the THIRD DYNAMIC-the dynamic of groups.

In applying HCOBs as in auditing a preclear, you see that following a certain procedure results in the remedy of a certain personal situation.

In applying HCO Policy Letters, you see that by following or continuing certain third dynamic procedures you remedy, handle or continue certain situations which relate to groups.

In both cases, SURVIVAL is the keynote of the end result.

HCOB auditing tech increases the survival of the individual as an individual.

HCO PL third dynamic tech increases the survival of the group.

Man has always had a certain amount of know-how in both individual and group matters of survival, but he has never had any high level of result.

It is easy to see auditing improve the individual when it is exactly and expertly applied.

Similarly one can see third dynamic tech improve the group and its survival potential.

Just as there is "squirrel" auditing (alter-ised and unworkable) so there can be "squirrel" third dynamic tech.

An executive who has no familiarity with HCO PLs can make an awful lot of mistakes.

It is an easy pretense that first dynamic tech existed. But no one got any better when man knew no more than the mumbo jumbo he had before 1950.

Since then real results occur. But they only occur when the actual tech of Dianetics and Scientology is correctly applied.

The same situation existed in the field of the third dynamic. The pretense was that "business" tech was successful, to name one. But 17 out of 19 businesses fail every year and the whole of the business world is under threat from the ideology of communism. Strikes, legislation, banking and other catastrophes daily remain unhandled by "business tech." So there's only pretense that "business tech" applies to groups successfully. It is at best a dying technology.

The failure is that previous third dynamic tech did not seek out and learn the basic laws on which it must have existed.

You have seen the first dynamic tech of auditing develop over the decades to a highly precise and very workable body of knowledge. The current search began in about 1931. By 1970 it was in full practice over the world.

The need of organizations to serve the first dynamic tech beginning in 1949 forced further and further into view the absence of third dynamic tech and its vital need.

With much hard experience the data now contained in HCO Policy Letters was won. In 1965 I began an active search for the basic laws of the third dynamic. What has been found since then has been recorded on tapes or published in HCO PLs.

If auditing took 38 years to bring to a highly polished state, then the 20 years of experience, of which only 5 were devoted to an active effort to locate the basic laws, can be seen to be an incomplete study.

But incomplete or not, the data and drills contained in HCO Policy Letters are a great advance over what man had.

Hubbard, L. (1971, 4 June) Third Dynamic Tech. Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., Basic Staff Volume 0, pp. 55-57). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

This is the first policy letter on STANDARD ADMINISTRATION. STANDARD TECH came in with a crash just by teaching the most basic of basics as the most important actions. Cases which hadn't moved for years, when handled by Case Supervisors and auditors who skipped all the airy-fairy nonsense and just did the usual, ordinary, basic actions, suddenly flew.

There is also Standard Training Procedure. This again is the ordinary, down-to-earth basic actions. A class that hadn't moved at all suddenly took off and all graduated when the USUAL was done.

Thus we find the flaw in all our actions to be the failure to separate out the truly basic important actions and instead engaging upon trivial complexities.

It is a characteristic of a thetan that the least complex actions are the most powerful. When his confront lessens, he tries to do things by vias that add complexities and he then fails and becomes weak.

So, just as we blasted our way to 100% results with STANDARD TECH, so we can thunder straight through to victory using STANDARD ADMIN.

DEFINITIONS​

STANDARD means "A definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, Standard 3b, page 2223.)

ADMINISTRATION means "The principles, practices and rationalized techniques employed in achieving the objectives or aims of an organization." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, 5a, administration, page 28.) We commonly call this "admin" as a shortening of it and to designate the work of doing it.

ORGANIZATION means "A group of people that has a more or less constant membership, a body of officers, a purpose, and usually a set of regulations."(Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, 2b, page 1590.)

BASICS means (basic-s) "something that is basic: FUNDAMENTAL."

BASE means "the bottom of something considered as its support."

FUNDAMENTAL means "serving as an original or generating source: being the one from which others are derived."

DERIVED means "formed or developed out of something else," which is to say something formed or made from a basic.

Thus if we have the BASIC or base or starting point, and know it well, then from it we can develop more complex actions.

We had to have the fundamental or basic laws of organization in order to develop the full structure of organization.

Administration becomes STANDARD when we have the most important points or laws or actions and when we always use these and use them in just the same way.

Hubbard, L. (1968, 9 November) Standard Admin. Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., Basic Staff Volume 0, pp. 51-54). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

In 1965 I wrote the policy letter KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING. It appears as the first item of nearly every Dianetics and Scientology course checksheet. And with good reason. Unswerving and relentless application of that one issue by every Scientologist is our only certain means of keeping the technology pure and the future hope of mankind alive.

It may not be generally understood, however, that the principles given in that policy letter do not apply only to what is commonly referred to as "tech" - the first dynamic technology given in HCO Bulletins. You see, when "tech" goes out, the pc suffers. When "admin" goes out, the org declines.

Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin. The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration-POLICY.

POLICY​

POLICY embraces the basic duties of a staff member, the precision technology of management in all its aspects and at every echelon, and standard ethics and justice procedures. Policy is found in HCO PLs, Flag Orders, Central Bureaux Orders, LRH EDs, taped lectures and other duly authorized and on-source administrative issues.

Just as with our technology of handling the individual, our policies for the establishment and expansion of effective organizations are based on fundamental laws of life derived through exhaustive research and experience. Every policy we have has been put to the acid test- "Does it work?" -and passed. Neither tech nor policy admit interpretation, alteration or "new ideas" generated by the bank.

Bright, constructive application of exact principles, yes. Embellishment and know-best, never.

To you, the individual executive or staff member, "Keeping Admin Working" means making sure that you have all the policy relating to your post and to your hat as a staff member.

[...]

Hubbard, L. (1986, 10 July) Keeping Admin Working. Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., Basic Staff Volume 0, pp. 70-72). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

You see, there are eight dynamics. And in auditing you are actually only concentrating on the third dynamic. Auditing is a third dynamic activity.

Hubbard, L. (1961, 14 June). Seminar: Withholds. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex, England.

This idea being forwarded that it is somehow viable or proper to exclude green-on-white from Hubbard's body of tech is ridiculous and willfully dishonest. It is undoubtedly designed to confuse the less-informed, and actually serves Miscavige's command intention. The idea is shamelessly squirrel.

This is not to say that Scientologists don't specialize in particular applications of particular pieces of Hubbard "tech." Steve Poore, for example, specialized in "admin tech." Rathbun has long specialized in "ethics tech." Karen de la Carriere specializes in "auditing tech." When I was a Scientologist, I specialized in auditing tech too. Additionally, however, in carrying out Command Intention, I took courses in admin and ethics tech, as I'm sure Poore, Rathbun, Rinder and de la Carriere also did.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

This is easily explained. There were actually three separate L. Ron Hubbards, each with a distinct and separate personality. ...

Father, Son, & Holy Ghost?

Yeah, trinities have long been popular. That should help to ease the evolution of the church in future histories.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

Father, Son, & Holy Ghost?

Yeah, trinities have long been popular. That should help to ease the evolution of the church in future histories.


Mark A. Baker

Perhaps we only had the 1st and 3rd, and there was never a 2nd L. Ron Hubbard.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Perhaps we only had the 1st and 3rd, and there was never a 2nd L. Ron Hubbard.

Paul

1st: Ron as Static

2nd: Ron as L. Ron Hubbard

3rd: Ron as Thetan

Blessed be the Name of Ron.


Mark A. Baker

 

[guanoloco]

Perhaps we only had the 1st and 3rd, and there was never a 2nd L. Ron Hubbard.

Paul

That actually fits because there never was a second wife.

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

What a beautiful heartfelt message.

I'm very sorry to hear about what happened to you as a child, I know how things that occurred in those years can shape a persons future and bullying is especially nasty as it can create a myriad of unwanted reactions later in life ... for what it's worth it sounds to me as if you certainly did win, but I wish you hadn't needed to (win) in the first place. I know there are people here that have experienced emotional trauma via their own Fathers too so you are certainly not alone.

​

When I joined ESMB it was to meet Ex scientologists and, for want of a better word, 'normal' people (never in scientology) partly because losing cultic terminology (and thinking!) when chatting to each other was and is important to me. You're going to really enjoy it here, some of our funniest and brightest were never in (including one of the people that now runs the board) and your perspective is particularly valuable due to never having been in the cult mindset in the first place, and if you feel you receive something back by being here, well ... that will be the icing on the caek.

​

Thanks again, Trouble, for being so supportive and sharing your experience here. You've given me a different perspective in terms of the value of someone who is outside the church. Because of people like you, i'll definitely stick around!

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

Lol, Oh come on Claire ... Terril presents himself here exactly as I imagine he is ... it's you that has invented the fictional Terril who apparently needs you to explain his real thoughts and speak on his behalf.

Most here would know by now that your husband is a scientologist and that you no longer are, but Xenu's Boyfriend is very new here and may not know ... or care.

Actually, this may sound weird, but I don't always listen to what people "say", I read things energetically. I have no idea what Claire's designations are, nor would I presume to put her in any category. To me, the energy of Scientology is often one of defensiveness and attack, mixed with a desire to redefine the situation to their advantage. For me, I can't tell whether someone is a Scientologist in a place like this based on what they say, but rather what I feel interacting with them. If I feel defensive, if I start doubting myself, if I feel like I'm being shamed for using critical thought, that tips me off. Now some, like COB are agreessive, while others can be passive-agressive, but in the end it's the safe. Do whatever you have to to keep the tech in place, don't be critical and keep furthering Hubbard's legacy.

 

[Claire Swazey]

XB,

I am not a Scientologist. I referred to my having been such in the past tense. Doesn't really matter what I might remind you of.

We're all just people with our own perspectives and our own ways of expressing ourselves and, in life, lots of people may seem to others to use arguments similar to those others would make.
For instance, apologists of Islam sometimes use arguments that strongly remind me of CofS apologists. Yet they aren't CofS apologists.

I had an argument with my friend, some time ago, about CofS and Tom Cruise. One of us was sticking up for TC and the cult like crazy. The other one started yelling "It's a CULT!" And you know who did what? My friend was the apologist and she's never been affiliated with CofS or any Scn faction. I was the one who was yelling "it's a cult!"

I don't further anything other than my own views and points I think might be appropriate to be posted for whatever thread on which I happen to be.

Hopefully, this will illustrate the perils of typecasting and stereotyping just because of some disagreement or reminiscence.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Actually, this may sound weird, but I don't always listen to what people "say", I read things energetically. ...

Try paying more attention to such things as words and meanings. They are what reading is about.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Claire Swazey]

Hey, if someone says they're a girl but their posts remind someone of a guy's, well, then, that person should make sure to direct that person to the closest men's room.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Actually, this may sound weird, but I don't always listen to what people "say", I read things energetically. I have no idea what Claire's designations are, nor would I presume to put her in any category. To me, the energy of Scientology is often one of defensiveness and attack, mixed with a desire to redefine the situation to their advantage. For me, I can't tell whether someone is a Scientologist in a place like this based on what they say, but rather what I feel interacting with them. If I feel defensive, if I start doubting myself, if I feel like I'm being shamed for using critical thought, that tips me off. Now some, like COB are agreessive, while others can be passive-agressive, but in the end it's the safe. Do whatever you have to to keep the tech in place, don't be critical and keep furthering Hubbard's legacy.

I know exactly what you mean (and I also realise that you read the words and understand the meanings as well) ...

​

Unfortunately what seems to have happened here is that you have arrived and dared to be honest (you're not 'conditioned' yet ... thank goodness) regarding certain people and the 'rules' that they feel should be applicable (there are no such rules luckily) and perhaps you are being perceived as a potential trouble source (lol!) ... by the way I mean that just as it's written and not in the scientological way.

Read some of 'Infinites' posts ... he also is a 'never in' poster and he cuts to the point without the game playing that some here seem to expect.

No-one new would ever join ESMB if they were treated like half wits just for never having been silly enough to join a cult and for having an opinion.

​

You are completely in the right place and I can't wait till you start to fire up and liven the party up a bit! (or just relax and play, whichever you like).

​

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

I know exactly what you mean (and I also realise that you read the words and understand the meanings as well) ...

​

Unfortunately what seems to have happened here is that you have arrived and dared to be honest (you're not 'conditioned' yet ... thank goodness) regarding certain people and the 'rules' that they feel should be applicable (there are no such rules luckily) and perhaps you are being perceived as a potential trouble source (lol!) ... by the way I mean that just as it's written and not in the scientological way.

Read some of 'Infinites' posts ... he also is a 'never in' poster and he cuts to the point without the game playing that some here seem to expect.

No-one new would ever join ESMB if they were treated like half wits just for never having been silly enough to join a cult and for having an opinion.

​

You are completely in the right place and I can't wait till you start to fire up and liven the party up a bit! (or just relax and play, whichever you like).

​

Thanks Trouble, you get me. I really appreciate your encouragement and support...thanks for making this feel like a community. You're awesome.

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

Try paying more attention to such things as words and meanings. They are what reading is about.


Mark A. Baker

Hi Mark,

I thought someone might say something like when I posted what I did and I appreciate your point, but I think I'm going to stick to mine. I'm a reader, and sometimes professional writer, and I know the importance of words and meanings. But I feel that part of the indoctrination and brainwashing of Scientology is that everything comes down to words and meanings. I've read posts on Xenu.net where someone is telling their story and describing their auditing sessions and the chain of command, and with the abbreviations, the definitions, and the general Hubbardese, I have no idea what they are talking about. I think after you've been in a few years, you may not realize that you are truly speaking a completely different language. And Hubbard was very precise about his words and meanings.

What I've observed in the books I've read about the church and moving up the bridge is that there is a process of desensitization where one becomes cut off more and more from one's feelings. It begins in the communication course where you learn to "control" another person, and go into numbing, hypnotic states. Gradually, I believe, you lose a relationship to your own moral compass and emotional core, which is why people can walk around watching and doing cruel and humiliating things and justify them, or can disconnect from family without a second thought.

My hypothesis is that part of healing from Scientology is learning to have a relationship with one's intuition again, regardless of the "words and meanings" that are being hurled at one continuously. One of the reasons for constant Sec Checks, or to bring people who have blown back to the base is that once they start getting away from those words and meanings in the real world, those definitions become meaningless. One has to learn to get past the words and say, "What am I experiencing in my body about what is happening right now. How do I feel about what is happening?"

For example: We are having a argument in this thread where Claire feels the need to defend herself and prove that she is not a defender of Scientology. Now, originally I asserted something about the Independent Scientology movement and she felt I was being judgmental and unfair. She then defended Terril's slightly nasty comment. My point is, Claire is sending a lot of words my way, and everything she says makes logical sense, but something about the defensiveness doesn't feel right. I don't see why she couldn't say earlier, "I understand your point, but I feel there is another side to this." She calls someone a bigot, and then is pissed when I call her a Scientologist.

Now if I use only my mind, her arguments can persuade me away from my initial point, which was that I was outraged (and still am) that I feel too many in the Independent Scientologist movement, or at least the ones who present themselves to the media, want to act like COB is the devil, while letting LRH completely off the hook. And I argue that not holding Hubbard accountable for his crimes, perpetuates the harm that Scientology does, because even if independent scientologists don't run an RPF, or "harm children" as she claims, they still continue to revere the man who created those things and I find that problematic.

Claire called me a bigot and told me to some freakin' facts, which is pretty strong response to what I said. Now she wants moderation and understanding. The point is that now I'm starting to doubt whether I was right, or what we were even talking about in the first place, because NOW we are talking about whether or not Claire is a Scientologist. Which gets me back to my initial point about mystification. Whether Claire is aware she is doing this is irrelevant to me. The point is, we're off the topic and distracted from my original point - the destructiveness of the Independent Scientology movement when they continue to promote LRH.

So, in other words, as someone here, Similla I think, said, Scientology will not cure or fix Scientology- because Scientology is about the use of the mind. But everything isn't about the mind, sometimes it's about the heart. And it is only through regaining one's intuition that one gets their soul back from Scientology. Focusing on words and meanings aren't enough.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... For example: We are having a argument in this thread where Claire feels the need to defend herself and prove that she is not a defender of Scientology. Now, originally I asserted something about the Independent Scientology movement and she felt I was being judgmental and unfair. She then defended Terril's slightly nasty comment. My point is, Claire is sending a lot of words my way, and everything she says makes logical sense, but something about the defensiveness doesn't feel right. I don't see why she couldn't say earlier, "I understand your point, but I feel there is another side to this." She calls someone a bigot, and then is pissed when I call her a Scientologist. ...

Your new here and have little experience with the ex-scientology community. The fact is Claire left scientology years ago, yet nonetheless has been frequently attacked over the years by some who choose to use her as a "strawman" for their own arguments.

Nor is Claire alone in this. It happens frequently, both on this board and elsewhere. The ex-scientology community is fraught with factions, individuals bearing grudges or overwhelmed with other personal issues which they frequently use as a basis for attacking others.

The fact is such treatment becomes wearing over time, and no doubt Claire can be a bit defensive when she perceives herself or her friends being actively attacked. Call it "shellshock". That sort of reaction is all too typical in light of the sort of treatment she & others have experienced. A person with experience would at least understand.

A person with sense and manners would know to "back off".

Too many with no experience or knowledge of scientology beyond what they may have read somewhere online join up and subsequently conduct themselves on the board as if they knew that of which they were speaking and their offered "insights" into the psychology of former members were useful & accurate.

I've yet to meet a person who had no experience of scientology yet who had as much to offer in terms of insight into the subject or the church as the rawest of ex-scientologists who had a minimal experience of the topic. Of course, that's just my experience. I've only been out of the church and active among former members for thirty years.

Stick to words & meanings. Energy is hard to read if you don't have an accurate feel for the context.
.

Mark A. Baker

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Xenu's Boyfriend,

Your 'conditioning' appears to have commenced (lol) but I know you are more than capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff ... do have fun as you wade through it though and if all else fails remind yourself that you were one of the brighter people on this board that didn't join a mad-mans cult.

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

Your new here and have little experience with the ex-scientology community. The fact is Claire left scientology years ago, yet nonetheless has been frequently attacked over the years by some who choose to use her as a "strawman" for their own arguments.

Nor is Claire alone in this. It happens frequently, both on this board and elsewhere. The ex-scientology community is fraught with factions, individuals bearing grudges or overwhelmed with other personal issues which they frequently use as a basis for attacking others.

The fact is such treatment becomes wearing over time, and no doubt Claire can be a bit defensive when she perceives herself or her friends being actively attacked. Call it "shellshock". That sort of reaction is all too typical in light of the sort of treatment she & others have experienced. A person with experience would at least understand.

A person with sense and manners would know to "back off".

Too many with no experience or knowledge of scientology beyond what they may have read somewhere online join up and subsequently conduct themselves on the board as if they knew that of which they were speaking and their offered "insights" into the psychology of former members were useful & accurate.

I've yet to meet a person who had no experience of scientology yet who had as much to offer in terms of insight into the subject or the church as the rawest of ex-scientologists who had a minimal experience of the topic. Of course, that's just my experience. I've only been out of the church and active among former members for thirty years.

Stick to words & meanings. Energy is hard to read if you don't have an accurate feel for the context.
.

Mark A. Baker

Mark,

You know, part of me appreciates your point here (although I don't appreciate the condescension that went into expressing it) and the other part really wants to tell you and Claire, with all due respect, to back the fuck off.

If you read my initial post, no one actually "attacked" Claire - I expressed rage when I read the beginning of this thread because I saw the website and I felt frustrated because, and I've made this point several times, I feel like I keep seeing the positive references to LRH in the independent community, and the anti-David Miscavige posts, if as he is the only thing wrong with the church. I read these stories about what happened under LRH's leadership aboard the Apollo and I think there is something very wrong in the public face of the movement, which I was trying to address, because I see it happening over and over again.

You wrote, "A person with sense and manners would know when to back off", but I'm not sure who you're talking to. As I go through this thread, I find Claire's tone at times defensive and confrontational. To be honest, I don't know either of you and I really don't have a desire to attack anyone personally here.

It feels tacky that you would "pull rank" with me and basically tell me that I'm not really entitled to my opinion because I'm new and don't really get how it works. I've never experienced this on Operation Clambake's message board. Perhaps it should be made clearer that this is a board that focuses specifically on people who were in the church and have now come out and want to connect with each others. On those terms, I feel the need to respect this space for those people. That doesn't mean I won't post or read, but maybe there is a better place for me to direct my anger.

I do, feel, however, that it is a dangerous game, in a forum like this, for you to chastise me with what I feel (and I don't know your history within the church) are aisps of what are still Scientologist elitism - you're basically calling me a Wog with no manners. I don't want to be one of these people who co-ops someone else's movement, and I would never want to be arrogant and assume I know everything about the church...still, if you really have the goal of eradicating the CoS as it exists now, it's going to take people on both of the fence, including people like me who have perceptions based on what we learn from testimonials, books, documentaries, etc. We may not have all the answers, but we have passion.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I is doin the happy dance now, cos I'm bad ...