What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Gloria Swanson and Bob Cummings were two of the original Hollywood health food nuts (sorry I don't have a more accurate word). They went to a doctor, related to a friend of mine, and got desiccated liver and other stuff to keep them youthful.

She did Dianetics too.

I think I heard that in 1973. I started wearing those turban things around my head. There was a retro 40s look for a while. The shoes, the fabrics, the capes etc. I got em all. My husband liked Gloria Swanson.:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9UVzDQmjLU

Now This is sissy dancing and I love every step of it!
:clap::clap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-P77A9THEM
 
Last edited:

purple haze

Patron with Honors
corrections

A super coincidence occurred. My good friend and soul mate Edey has her birthday on Sunday, Oct 17th. A large group of friends and acquaintances are gathering at a health food type restaurant to celebrate this event. I already put this on my calendar about 3 weeks ago.

On Monday, of this week, I received a phone call from Joan nee Joan Loosli, nee Joan Todhunter telling me that her birthday is Saturday, Oct 16 and she is having a dinner at her house to celebrate the event and that I am invited. Joan's Son, Remi, is a chef at some major restaurant in the Valley area of L.A. and he is going to do all the cooking for the party.

What is it with Libra women? My two closest women friends and their birthdays are one day apart and they are both having large parties. Well, it gets even more interesting. I asked Edey if she had invited Johnny THe Magic Thetan to her party and she said she hadn't because Johnny was going to be out of town in Seattle this week.

Joan also invited Edey who she met at our dinner and music outing in Fullerton a couple weeks ago. Edey RSVP'ed to Joan today and found out that Johnny is in town and he is going to Joan's party. Edey cannot make Joan's party because she only had about 4 days advanced notice and already had plans for that day. Edey then called me and asked me if she should invite Johnny to her party now that she knows he is in town and I said, of course, that she should. She told me she would invite him tonight.

THE PLOT THICKENS
I get home and turn on my computer and check this thread and Hats has posted videos of Johnny speaking at the Freezone Convention. I watch one video and decide to forward it via email to Edey. I then come back and watch another Johnny video and while I am watching, my phone rings and IT IS JOHHNNY! He just called to say hi! I asked him if Edey invited him to her party and he said that she had not so I took it upon myself to invite him. You know, she told me she would do it tonight so when he called me, I just saved her a call and invited Johnny. He said that he thinks he will come! He has to check his calendar first when he gets home but he thought he was free and if he was free, he said that he will come. How about that!

PURPLE HAZE CALLS ME the night I heard the Channeling demonstration. Purple Haze has come out on Facebook using her own name, Candy Swanson. Of course that is the first CC Celebrity Auditor whom I called Tonto in my Origins of Celebrity Centre story posted on this thread and on its own independent thread on ESMB. Candy has posted some incredible photographs of herself and her friends from the mid and late 1970's. I met her just briefly in 1971 and was on staff with her at CCLA in 1971-72. Some of her pictures show that she was a very "hot" and sexy woman back in the 70's. So on the phone, I tell Candy that I have read her Facebook site and left some comments. She asks me if I have seen the pictures she has posted. I say, yes I have seen them and wow you looked just as I remember you in 1971. YOU WERE HOT!!

There was a delay, and then Candy repeats, I WAS hot? I realized that I had fired a foot bullet and tried to recover my aplomb (a Mark Baker word meaning composure). Gary, we cleared this all out on the phone and it was my understanding you were going to make a corrective post regarding it... So, I'll attempt to correct your misdup = when you insert your own meaning from your own case onto another's actions, it's just that, your reaction. I would suggest you query the other rather than just ASS-U-ME what I was thinking. First I said, "Well Candy, you are still a very attractive woman for your age but you were in your mid twenties in those days." There was a comm lag, seconds of dead air and I knew I was still in trouble. I continued, "Candy, it just isn't the same. I mean I am still handsome for a 70 year old man but back in 1971 I was much much hotter than I am now. That's just the way it is. That seemed to do it and she said cheerfully, I was really hot wasn't I?.It is hard for me to be treated only as a body, Gary, and I was stunned = it seems like such a small part of the whole person to me.:yes: I said, "Yes, you were really awesome looking, one of the two or three best looking women at the old CCLA." She then said, well I am a lot more worldly and wiser now than I was then, that's for sure. I asked, are you telling me that if you had the wisdom then which you have now, you would have lived your life differently and she said things would have been a lot different. She said that things would have been totally different especially vis a vis her relationships with various men.:angry::duh:

TIME PASSAGE USUALLY EQUATES TO GAINS IN WISDOM Looking at my own life, this was certainly the case and when Candy told me it was true in her life as well, that gave me pause to think. In her life, back in the early 1970's Scientology scene, she was a big VIP, a Kha Khan, in pretty tight with LRH and was auditing movie stars such as Karen Black and Directors such as Milton Katselas and Ernest Lehman. She was already a celebrity in her own right and when she told me she was far far wiser now, I learned something. HELLO! this had to do with seeing Yvonne's dark side when she had me com eved. She said something like: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Com Ev found naught, and I was freed from helping out at CC [I was on a leave from SO and stopped by to help Yvonne out [recommended by Hana] and found myself stuck there for over 2 years!

I've met a few who were wiser in their youth and went off the rails as they matured but for most of us, our life experiences teach us a lot and we gain greatly in widsom. Move ahead 40 years and the person is much wiser.

To me an exception might be a man such as Orson Wells. He was just brilliant as a young man, a movie director, a movie star, a radio personality, he embodied great achievment and wisdom at a young age. When he was older, he was just known for acting in non descript wine commercials. He did nothing major of a creative nature in the second half of his life. What is with that?

Roger, any comments which you make on this topic above would be appreceiated.
Lakey

Lakey: I recommend you use spell check, OK? I'm a proofreader and it's bugging me to leave them be...LOL :omg:
 
Lakey: I recommend you use spell check, OK? I'm a proofreader and it's bugging me to leave them be...LOL :omg:

Some things like: "there" versus "their" versus "they're" aren't correctable by spell check. This program red lines questionable words. All one has to do is look for the red lines.
 
I think I heard that in 1973. I started wearing those turban things around my head. There was a retro 40s look for a while. The shoes, the fabrics, the capes etc. I got em all. My husband liked Gloria Swanson.:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9UVzDQmjLU

Now This is sissy dancing and I love every step of it!
:clap::clap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-P77A9THEM

A long time ago I was backstage at ACT in the City (by the Golden Gate), it is a theater company. I met a guy named Steve Silver there. He had done the props for "Harold and Maude." I really liked that movie, and he invited me to his house , where they were stored in his parents' basement. That was across the street from the Palace of Fine Arts. He had a girl friend named "bug."

Palace_FineArts_SF1.jpg


I lost track of him. And then he had "Beach Blanket Babylon" an only in San Francisco musical that changes constantly. It has been running for decades. he has been dead ten or twenty years, but it keeps on going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ehb87lpdc

For anyone , who has ever been backstage at any professional musicals (not community), there are maybe 5% straight guys in the dancers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCfA-qApXOA&feature=related
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
...snip

I lost track of him. And then he had "Beach Blanket Babylon" an only in San Francisco musical that changes constantly. It has been running for decades. he has been dead ten or twenty years, but it keeps on going.


For anyone , who has ever been backstage at any professional musicals (not community), there are maybe 5% straight guys in the dancers.

How do you know its the same show even if it changes constantly. Is it like the Rocky Horror show with constant edits? :ohmy:

Beach Blanket Babylon is a restaurant in London too
cat.jpg
 
How do you know its the same show even if it changes constantly. Is it like the Rocky Horror show with constant edits? :ohmy:

Beach Blanket Babylon is a restaurant in London too
cat.jpg

The one in London is a spin off.

It plays in San Francisco at Club Fugazi. It is dance and song send ups of current events. current events change. The format remains the same.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
The spell check on ESMB doesn't seem to work.

Lakey: I recommend you use spell check, OK? I'm a proofreader and it's bugging me to leave them be...LOL :omg:

I tried to use the spell check on ESMB nearly a year ago and it did not work. The only way to do it that I know is to write the article and copy it to my Microsoft Word processor and spell check it there, then copy that and paste it back on ESMB.

I try to spell check things myself and Google words I am not sure how to spell. No matter how many times I proof read an article, typos still remain. Maybe on the longer posts, I'll start using the Microsoft Word spell check.

Candy - On the quoting of a particular person, if I misquote, the person who I am quoting is the senior authority so of course I am going to defer to their point of view. I will say a couple of things though in my defense.

#1 on your being hot in 1971. I talked to you by phone and you asked me if I had seen your new pictures and I answered yes, that I had seen pictures #1 thru #9. You mentioned that you had posted another series of 8 photos and recommended that I see them. I immediately went there and saw these pictures of you when you were in your early and mid twenties. I thought you looked hot back then and told you so.

Let's get serious here. You asked me to look at some photos; photos show mainly a person's body and clothing. Sure, a perceptive person can pick up some of the person's aura through the photo but when a man remarks that a woman was "hot" after looking at some photos of her from many years ago, that comment is going to relate to her sex appeal and not her inner beauty. Anyone who thinks differently, IMHO, is just deluding themselves. I said you were hot. Later on I talked to you about it and you said that you liked being told you were hot back there in the 1970's and you realized that I was not saying that you were not hot now. In my mind our tacit agreement was that we were speaking of your personal appearance, i.e. your sex appeal and we were not speaking of your sprititual beauty. Of course your spiritual beauty was there in both eras, 1971 and now but I was looking at photos. I have never heard the term "hot" used to describe one's inner beauty, only their sexiness.

#2 When you mentioned that your have grown a lot in wisdom since 1971 and would do things differently, you did not give any specifics. There is no way I could know that you were refering to your feelings about Yvonne unless you had specifically mentioned that to me. the fact that you were refering to your dealings with Yvonne specifically did not even occur to me. At the time, Yvonne was an Icon with a capital "I". Being dedicated and "if you are not with us you are against us" was the way we all thought then. I do not know how much Yvonne knew then about Ron but I doubt if she knew at all anything about his dark side. There was no internet then and even if there was, Yvonne would never have read it.

Up until recently, Candy, I had assumed that you were 100% dedicated to the Scientology way of looking at things, back in the early 1970's as I was. Over several conversations with you, I had learned that you were not dedicated as much as most of the rest of us and that you had an independent streak and never fully bought into the Sea Org. Prior to writing my post, I had not connected the dots and had no idea that the changes which you were refering to concerned mainly how you would have handled Yvonne. Perhaps you figured that I had picked up on this from all the data you had given me but in actual fact, I am not that sharp and had not connected the dots.

I did the best I could in repeating the interesting components of our conversations. If I am really missing the mark on these to a very extensive degree, I think it best that I just stop commenting on my interchanges with you and that is exactly what I am going to do. If I got it wrong, I am sorry. It was mainly the inability to duplicate the tacit, unspoken aspects of what we talked about. I had seen it one way but that was not your way. Since I am writing about you and you do not like what I wrote, I am automatically wrong. I was just guessing at what you meant while you are certain about what you meant. I am going to just leave it at that and not report any of our conversations any more.

If you want me to report something specific, just write it up for me and I will post it for you if you like.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
The fiction about men - women relationships.

Men - women relationships have very much to do with people's bodies. To believe otherwise is to have one's head buried in the sand like an ostrich.

Cases in point - A certain well known ex Scientologist who is a huge spiritual being and who is a genius of sorts.

This man has an eye for the best looking women. Right there he is going for the beautiful body. He himself is not interested in eating wisely or maintaining the correct weight or detoxifying his body.

I have introduced him to two beautiful women. They both were never in scientology but are spiritual in nature. Both women loved meeting this man and wanted to see him further on the condition that it be only for friendship but not romance. Both women have discussed this with me. They both have beautiful figures and are healty and fit. They will not date a man who is overweight and is not careful about what he eats. Besides the aesthetic side of this, both women are concerned about the man's health. They perceive that his poor health habits may shorten his life span and may keep him from having the energy to participate in the hiking, biking, snorkeling type of activities which they enjoy.

Coming from both the male side, focusing on only the most physically beautiful women and the female side, desiring a man with a thin, attractive, vibrant and healthy body, it is the body which is the major factor in selecting a 2D.

I myself have experienced this same reaction from these two women as well as my ex wife and other potential girlfriends.

For both the man mentioned above and myself, these women want to be our friends and get to know us better and have us in their lives but as far as a 2D goes, it is a no go until such time as the man gets himself in shape physically.

This is not immature behavior, this is stark reality. You know what? I admire both these women for their beliefs. When men allow their bodies to go to hell and then think they can charm the most beautiful women to be sexual partners with them, those men are just sicko's or chauvinists.

The women are very careful about what they eat and they have excellent health habits. It is not easy to maintain the bodies which they have. They work at it and present a very attractive package to men. They do have the right to demand that the men who want to have sexual relations with them work just as hard to keep up their bodies.

For friendship, or just human relationships in general, inner beauty should be emphasized. For sexual relationships, the body trumps inner beauty alone. If you have only inner beauty and you insist on getting a beautiful looking woman, you had better be beautiful looking yourself if you are a man or you are going to "come a cropper".
Lakey
 

purple haze

Patron with Honors
Geez, Lackey..as I said in another post, we need a sense of humor here. I wasn't complaining about you, I was speaking about your inclination to form opinions on another's comments without asking specifics. I don't expect you to read minds, altho it seems to me you are in some manner promoting this with Ginger's Garden. I'm just messiong with you, Gary. Don't take it so personally. What I say to you directly, you get perfectly. It's when you pass it on to others, I've noticed a discrepancy, and it even takes on the color of gossip to me, which I detest and feel is at best, a waste of time.
I tried to use the spell check on ESMB nearly a year ago and it did not work. The only way to do it that I know is to write the article and copy it to my Microsoft Word processor and spell check it there, then copy that and paste it back on ESMB.

I try to spell check things myself and Google words I am not sure how to spell. No matter how many times I proof read an article, typos still remain. Maybe on the longer posts, I'll start using the Microsoft Word spell check.

Candy - On the quoting of a particular person, if I misquote, the person who I am quoting is the senior authority so of course I am going to defer to their point of view. I will say a couple of things though in my defense.

#1 on your being hot in 1971. I talked to you by phone and you asked me if I had seen your new pictures and I answered yes, that I had seen pictures #1 thru #9. You mentioned that you had posted another series of 8 photos and recommended that I see them. I immediately went there and saw these pictures of you when you were in your early and mid twenties. I thought you looked hot back then and told you so.

Let's get serious here. You asked me to look at some photos; photos show mainly a person's body and clothing. Sure, a perceptive person can pick up some of the person's aura through the photo but when a man remarks that a woman was "hot" after looking at some photos of her from many years ago, that comment is going to relate to her sex appeal and not her inner beauty. Anyone who thinks differently, IMHO, is just deluding themselves. I said you were hot. Later on I talked to you about it and you said that you liked being told you were hot back there in the 1970's and you realized that I was not saying that you were not hot now. In my mind our tacit agreement was that we were speaking of your personal appearance, i.e. you sex appeal and we were not speaking of your sprititual beauty. Of course your spiritual beauty was there in both eras, 1971 and now but I was looking at photos. I have never heard the term "hot" used to describe one's inner beauty, only their sexiness.

#2 When you mentioned that your have grown a lot in wisdom since 1971 and would do things differently, you did not give any specifics. There is no way I could know that you were refering to your feelings about Yvonne unless you had specifically mentioned that to me. the fact that you were refering to your dealings with Yvonne specifically did not even occur to me. At the time, Yvonne was an Icon with a capital "I". Being dedicated and "if you are not with us you are against us" was the way we all thought then. I do not know how much Yvonne knew then about Ron but I doubt if she knew at all anything about his dark side. There was no internet then and even if there was, Yvonne would never have read it.

Up until recently, Candy, I had assumed that you were 100% dedicated to the Scientology way of looking at things, back in the early 1970's as I was. Over several conversations with you, I had learned that you were not dedicated as much as most of the rest of us and that you had an independent streak and never fully bought into the Sea Org. Prior to writing my post, I had not connected the dots and had no idea that the changes which you were refering to concerned mainly how you would have handled Yvonne. Perhaps you figured that I had picked up on this from all the data you had given me but in actual fact, I am not that sharp and had not connected the dots.

I did the best I could in repeating the interesting components of our conversations. If I am really missing the mark on these to a very extensive degree, I think it best that I just stop commenting on my interchanges with you and that is exactly what I am going to do. If I got it wrong, I am sorry. It was mainly the inability to duplicate the tacit, unspoken aspects of what we talked about. I had seen it one way but that was not your way. Since I am writing about you and you do not like what I wrote, I am automatically wrong. I was just guessing at what you meant while you are certain about what you meant. I am going to just leave it at that and not report any of our conversations any more.

If you want me to report something specific, just write it up for me and I will post it for you if you like.
Lakey

aloha, Candy. Still Friends?
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Men - women relationships have very much to do with people's bodies. To believe otherwise is to have one's head buried in the sand like an ostrich.

[snippage...]

Lakey


Lakey, I would agree with you with a handful of caveats that I am not going into now.

This I will say: The direct perception of bodies has much to do with theta perceptics. When I say direct, I mean not magazine pictures but real, eyes, ears, and when appropriate, hands-on.

The early scientology I knew was populated with hot women that grew even hotter with their auditing. Were they centerfold specimens? No. Were they models of hotness? No, not by Madison Avenue standards. They were, each in their own right, downright attractive. In contrast, I have seen or known women who, by body standards, should have been attractive but who were repulsive with case quietly hung out to view. Having experienced the pleasure of a beautiful wife and three daughters, I am certain that women must see something similar in men. Note that some of the finest looking women hook up with men that look like putzes. I would conclude that women have different values than men.

I will paraphrase hubbard from one of his PDC lectures: The preclears body ~IS~ his case.

Is that a total truth? It seems to have been for hubbard. Yet, there is enough truth in the statement that it could apply to many of us. I will add that there is no reason a being has to have a down-tone case. It is likely the high-toned aspects of its case that are messing the being up anyway. If you buy into the tone scale as being some degree accurate or useful, you will note on the scale that bodies do not survive below 0.0 (Death). Nor do they exhibit tones above 4.0 (Enthusiasm). Those extremes of tone outside the body range belong to the being itself.

The way to piss any being off is to identify it as the body with all the junk that bodies tend to throw off. The way you do that is to ignore the being and focus on the body. This can really piss off a woman who is, herself, not being a body.

Yes, man-woman relationships have a lot to do with the sex of the bodies. When a couple of theta beings get together, with bodies in tow, something else comes about. My wife and I could be in the same room, her reading a book, me on the computer, yet we are making love, and quite satisfying it is, too.

Something to think about.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
I am thinking about it?

Geez, Lackey..as I said in another post, we need a sense of humor here. I wasn't complaining about you, I was speaking about your inclination to form opinions on another's comments without asking specifics. I don't expect you to read minds, altho it seems to me you are in some manner promoting this with Ginger's Garden. I'm just messiong with you, Gary. Don't take it so personally. What I say to you directly, you get perfectly. It's when you pass it on to others, I've noticed a discrepancy, and it even takes on the color of gossip to me, which I detest and feel is at best, a waste of time.

aloha, Candy. Still Friends?

I am thinking about it. I don't mind being critiqued in a positive way. If I screw up in duplicating someone, I like to be corrected but in your case, I am trying to capture what it is you told me and I am missing by a mile. In such a case, either I have to run each post of mine which mentions you by you personally or just not post about you. I am tending to go with the later because my posts are spontaneous and I may have to wait a day or to to here back from you and often by then my thoughts are stale dated.

I am still smarting about a disagreement I had about Johnny Rafanello's post in detail about the death of his wife Carolyn about 6 weeks ago. Roger criticized me heavily for trying to duplicate Johnny's post rather than just reading it in a detached manner. I told him that Johnny wanted help of some sort and that his post was a plea for help and Johnny was asking someone to duplicate his post from an exterior viewpoint and then tell Johnny what their reactions were. Johnny thought he might possibly gain some new insights on the matter if someone did that. I DUPLICATED JOHNNY PERFECTLY
I was holding firmly to my opinion about this with Roger and then Candy, you weighed in on Roger's side. Because of that, I figured that you and Roger combined had to be right and so I recanted and said I was wrong.

That night I met Johnny and Joan Newton up in Glendale. The first thing Johnny told me is that I got his message totally, 100% accurately right. He said he wanted someone to duplicate him, he was pleading for help, he didn't know exactly what he was looking for and that by duplicating him froman exterior viewpoint and giving him my impressions, he was able to read my comments and get some relief. I WAS 100% CORRECT AND ROGER WAS WRONG. I never mentioned this before due to respect for Roger and all he has done to help people on ESMB but now that you two seem to be ganging up on me again, I think it is appropriate that I mention it.

EP and I were the only ones who picked up on what Johnny was asking for and supplied him with help and yet I did not hold true to my own knowingness and I admitted I was wrong when actually I was totally correct. I figured that two highly trained ICONS certainly knew much more than a lesser trained person such as myself and yet all my inclinations had been 100% spot on correct. I learned a lesson there.

Looking at the 2D as totally spiritual and not a body thing is silly in my opinion and I am sticking to my opinion on this. As far as messing with me and playing around, it is not playing around when you make comments suggesting that what I am saying is just my case acting up. If you are kidding around with me, I should see some humor in what you say but in what you wrote, I did not detect any humor and when what I say is labled case, I think that goes over the line of messing around and having fun with someone. In all honesty that is how I feel.

Yes, we are still friends, but I just want you to know that I am a bit pissed. You will have to call me and handle my upset and then I am sure the friendship will continue as before probably even stronger once this stuff is cleaned up.
Lakey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top