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

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for this post and your previous post Roger. They are very timely, informative and pertinent! Reitman's comments about the negative Saturday Evening Post magazine article in the Spring of 1964 seem to blend into the mix of what was going on with LRH at that time. Apparently he was abandoning his search for truth at that time and "rabbiting", as you call it. The magazine article occurred and simply reinforced what he was already doing if I understand you correctly.

I wanted to ask something which relates to your mentioning of how a person can have gains by looking things up in dictionaries, thesaureses, etc.

In my own auditing, I have been making big gains in simply getting "my item" stated properly. Sometimes, big changes (blowdowns, etc.) occur when wording some area of interest. An example would be that I want to "get rid of" upsets with family members. If I reword this item and substitute "dissipate" for "get rid of", the item reacts much more strongly and runs easier and deeper. This goes so far that if significant effort is expended in picking the words and phrasing to express the item, the item is often nearly handled before it gets run.

I began using this tool when counseling other people informally. For example, a good friend came over and wanted to get advice from me on how to handle a situation with her boyfriend. I spent a lot of time getting her to word and phrase the difficulty she was having and by doing this, she practically solved her boyfriend situation by inspection, at least from her side of the situation. We then worked out a question for her to ask him. She asked that question of him that same evening and everything worked like a charm. The two successfully resolved their problem.
Lakey

Lakey,

You mention above in red:

I wanted to ask something which relates to your mentioning of how a person can have gains by looking things up in dictionaries, thesaureses, etc.

No, no, no, no . . . . You're pulling a Terril on me

What I actually wrote is:

One can actually get gains by getting a dictionary, thesaurus or book of antonyms & synonyms and selecting all the verbs or other expressions of intentions and running repeater on them . . . . you'd get "gains" from that too. It would in fact be tantamount to what you do in running Hubbard's implant parade.

Note the difference between what I wrote and the idea of "looking things up in dictionaries, thesaureses, etc."

Both you and Terril "avoided" the actual mention of the explicit action that produces the gain

Of course it's charged, hot and nasty . . . but what the hell let's dive off into something similar but different that's not as hot

On the rest of your post, the sad fact is that "most" folks are actually somewhat short on vocabulary when it comes to trying to express themselves . . . and they are certainly short on being able to express the subtle nuances often required to get the perfectly right item But not to worry, consulting a thesaurus can help them get the words they need.

It is quite amazing that a subtle shift in emphasis by use of a related but slightly different word can unlock the stuck flows/charge when one is going for "right items."

However, I am finding that trying to get the exact "right item wording" is not as important as getting a workably right item and the then using the right process on it to get it opening up and running is just as workable or even easier and more important.

Fixation on "right items" can be a bit of an arbitrary, and result in actually getting "wrong items." What you need is workable, run-able items

Rog

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril,

you can be very tiresome at times.

This is ad hominem. For gods sake address the points I make rather than this. I could call you tiresome! So what!

Let me put it this way . . . . you were not there in 1962 and 1963 . . . when Hubbard was doing his variations on a basic theme of "GPMs" . . . and I can tell you the implant shit he released in 1963 after he grandiosely announced in April '83 that "all GPMs audited to date were not your own but implants" . . . was shit! I was there and I lived and ran that crap all through that period.

I'd be interested in an actual quote here.

I have no opinion re implanted GPMs.

I know I and others benefited excellently. Many SSs on my thread here. FZ success stories.

We are all delusional?

You did OT 2&3 and had gains? Or not.

Please stick to what you actually bloody know.

Which is what I'm doing.

What you are talking about is later released, repackaged "implants lite."

If you want an informed call on the implant shit released at that time . . . talk to Mystic. He was there, he did it as well.

You're proving to be a master of running around in circles to make yourself right.

And as to this which you wrote:

I have no wish to make myself right here. I'm asking questions.

What is the validity of OT 2. Or OT 3, which I've commented on several times.

You position yourself as a tech expert. Please explain and answer quesions put to you and refrain from ad hominem.

1) which techie do you know who has actually done any training on Alan's material that could give you such an opinion?0

Off the top of my head don't say I can name anyone.

Perhaps Ralph Hilton, though he wasn't antagonistic.

2) If you think OT2 has anything to do with "looking up words" . . . boy, no wonder you rant on about that stuff the way you do! You need to re-look at this notion and have a look at what your understanding of what it is and what's actually going on in doing OT2! Either that, or you have no clue of what I actually wrote that you are reacting to.

You commented that it was looking up words. I queried this.

Scew the ad homninem and eval and insults.

Why don't you answer my questions?

Get real mate, Hubbard was dishonest, and the period I referred to in '62-'63 is when he went further around the bend and threw shit tech at us . . . it later got repackaged as "space opera lite" . . . . You can think it is wonderful if you want . . . but I wish to maintain my integrity and call it for what it is based on my personal experience of it all and from a position of being able to compare it to more workable, more correct tech.

Again you diminish the " Implanted " GPM tech.

It works. Gets results.

Please make a clean statement that you deny this.

And I would be dishonest not to do so.

R

Thats fine.

Bashing others tech is what CO$ does right now!

 

[Veda]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is ad hominem.

God, you're such a crybaby.

Again you diminish the " Implanted " GPM tech.

It works. Gets results.

-snip-

Are you an example of those results?

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

God, you're such a crybaby.

This is possibly the stupidest comment you ever made.

You really need to post whatever your core beliefs are
and forget the ad hominems against those whose viewpoints
are different to yours. Me for example.

However when you make such stupid asshole comments
as above I'll sometimes respond.

You appear to not understand the concept of co-existence.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey,

You mention above in red:

I wanted to ask something which relates to your mentioning of how a person can have gains by looking things up in dictionaries, thesaureses, etc.

No, no, no, no . . . . You're pulling a Terril on me

What I actually wrote is:



Note the difference between what I wrote and the idea of "looking things up in dictionaries, thesaureses, etc."

Both you and Terril "avoided" the actual mention of the explicit action that produces the gain

Of course it's charged, hot and nasty . . . but what the hell let's dive off into something similar but different that's not as hot

On the rest of your post, the sad fact is that "most" folks are actually somewhat short on vocabulary when it comes to trying to express themselves . . . and they are certainly short on being able to express the subtle nuances often required to get the perfectly right item But not to worry, consulting a thesaurus can help them get the words they need.

It is quite amazing that a subtle shift in emphasis by use of a related but slightly different word can unlock the stuck flows/charge when one is going for "right items."

However, I am finding that trying to get the exact "right item wording" is not as important as getting a workably right item and the then using the right process on it to get it opening up and running is just as workable or even easier and more important.

Fixation on "right items" can be a bit of an arbitrary, and result in actually getting "wrong items." What you need is workable, run-able items

Rog

Thanks for correcting me plus also answering my question. Your quote, which I highlighted in blue above, is exactly the area which I had questions about.

In the style of auditing which I have been recently receiving, I have been originating the things which I want handled. For example, I may originate that I want to handle "upsets caused by pets". The auditor lets me keep talking about that item as long as the TA is moving so I keep talking and might eventually narrow it down to "lack of affection from a cuddly pet which I routinely feed". It seems to benefit me to zero in on an item in this manner.

You are saying workable, run-able items are what is needed rather than a perfectly worded item and that makes sense. I will still shoot for a well worded item, because I find it fun to do, but will not be fixated on obtaining such an item.
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... You commented that it was looking up words. I queried this.

Scew the ad homninem and eval and insults.

Why don't you answer my questions? ...

No, BB, he did NOT say it was 'looking up words'. The technique he cited involved running repeater technique on lists of words selected from reference sources. Your repeated inability to understand and capacity for altering is what led to Roger's outburst.

As to answering your questions, Roger has addressed those issues in a fashion he considers best suited to address them. In particular he has avoided discussing those factors which he considers to be irrelevant, or detrimental, preferring instead to concentrate on that which he considers to be beneficial.

The part of 'r' in arc involves attempting to understand another person's perspective, not forcing them to adopt your own. Roger has made it clear that he considers the hubbard model of 'advanced level auditing' to be erroneous and to the degree that continuing discussion of it is counterproductive to the actual needs of addressing those aspects of 'case' which it was marketed as addressing. Expecting him to address what he considers to be an erroneous model from a perspective which accepts that model as 'true' is foolish.

If you aren't hearing what you want to hear I would suggest you consider that it might have something to do with your own inability to understand his viewpoint. Don't expect him to adopt your perspective and feed you the answers you want to hear.


Mark A. Baker

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

google +

http://www.google.com/intl/en/+/learnmore/

you all, readers of the Apollo thread / contributors to the Apollo thread might want to glance over at google +

it is google's run against facebook

it is something that Apollo thread folk might want to look at

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

No, BB, he did NOT say it was 'looking up words'. The technique he cited involved running repeater technique on lists of words selected from reference sources. Your repeated inability to understand and capacity for altering is what led to Roger's outburst.

As to answering your questions, Roger has addressed those issues in a fashion he considers best suited to address them. In particular he has avoided discussing those factors which he considers to be irrelevant, or detrimental, preferring instead to concentrate on that which he considers to be beneficial.

The part of 'r' in arc involves attempting to understand another person's perspective, not forcing them to adopt your own. Roger has made it clear that he considers the hubbard model of 'advanced level auditing' to be erroneous and to the degree that continuing discussion of it is counterproductive to the actual needs of addressing those aspects of 'case' which it was marketed as addressing. Expecting him to address what he considers to be an erroneous model from a perspective which accepts that model as 'true' is foolish.

If you aren't hearing what you want to hear I would suggest you consider that it might have something to do with your own inability to understand his viewpoint. Don't expect him to adopt your perspective and feed you the answers you want to hear.


Mark A. Baker

Yes.

In actuality, Mark, I've come to the conclusion that T either is incompetent at actually duplicating and comprehending what is written or he is deliberately altering what is written in order to go off on his wont defending his gains/wins etc., etc., when these and the version of implants he did are not even being discussed.

Either that or the man is so into "dub-in" as to border on delusional.

T, it'd be a good exercise for you to actually re-read my posts and see what was actually being addressed and communicated; then look at what you altered and how you altered it in order to then start criticizing, challenging and questioning what I did not write.

You just waste so much of folks time with your incessant alterings and continuing to argue or invent arguments about what isn't the issue or case in point. And that is what is so bloody tiresome.

End of story.

R

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

No, BB, he did NOT say it was 'looking up words'. The technique he cited involved running repeater technique on lists of words selected from reference sources. Your repeated inability to understand and capacity for altering is what led to Roger's outburst.

I did of course understand that, and perhaps expressed myself badly.
I was making the comparison with OT 2 that in the latter whatever word you were using repeater tech with, also had an end word.

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril,

you can be very tiresome at times.

Let me put it this way . . . . you were not there in 1962 and 1963 . . . when Hubbard was doing his variations on a basic theme of "GPMs" . . . and I can tell you the implant shit he released in 1963 after he grandiosely announced in April '63 that "all GPMs audited to date were not your own but implants" . . . was shit! I was there and I lived and ran that crap all through that period.

Please stick to what you actually bloody know.

What you are talking about is later released, repackaged "implants lite."

If you want an informed call on the implant shit released at that time . . . talk to Mystic. He was there, he did it as well.

You're proving to be a master of running around in circles to make yourself right.

And as to this which you wrote:


1) which techie do you know who has actually done any training on Alan's material that could give you such an opinion?

2) If you think OT2 has anything to do with "looking up words" . . . boy, no wonder you rant on about that stuff the way you do! You need to re-look at this notion and have a look at what your understanding of what it is and what's actually going on in doing OT2! Either that, or you have no clue of what I actually wrote that you are reacting to.

Get real mate, Hubbard was dishonest, and the period I referred to in '62-'63 is when he went further around the bend and threw shit tech at us . . . it later got repackaged as "space opera lite" . . . . You can think it is wonderful if you want . . . but I wish to maintain my integrity and call it for what it is based on my personal experience of it all and from a position of being able to compare it to more workable, more correct tech.

And I would be dishonest not to do so.

R

First I do understand that you were talking about repeater tech on words. Silly of you to not Grok that and silly of me to go a bit adversial and diminish that point. See reply to Mark on that.

Thing is not being a techie I look to them for better understanding.

I find you and Alan difficult to follow. At least as much my fault
as others I guess. Possibly a terminology matter.

Below I quote what Ralph said in this area. I cross checked this with an extremely knowledgable tech terminal who broadly agreed, but didn't have tape refs to immediate hand.

I should take your opinion over theirs?

I'm looking for greater understanding, and you don't answer my question on what OT 2 is about and call me an idiot in effect.

That reflects more on you than I.

I have a friend in my city, class VIII, who was on that experimental briefing course. Was basically research. I'm not completely ignorant.

Note I'd be happy to talk to mystic and will arrange that if he wishes to respond, and via phone or skype.


Marty's Blog
Ralph Hilton | November 2, 2010 at 9:43 pm | Reply

Bobo, GPM research ended abruptly because it was complete.
Alan and quite a few others followed a blind alley.
Using the word “realize” suggests that Alan’s ideas were correct which I disagree with.
LRH did talk about GPMs later in the Class 8 lectures and made it clear that they were rapidly handled on the grade chart.
He discontinued research into Actual GPMs after it became obvious that they were implants.
Some of the people involved have not been very forthcoming with data so my best guess is – LRH ordered a mission to go through actual GPM folders and look for similarities in “actual” GPMs to determine whether or not they might be implants. Otto Roos appears to have been involved.
From the results of that mission LRH spent several months plotting out the actual implants as can clearly be seen from the dates at the top of the LRH handwritten OT2 platens.
OT2, as released, runs out all “actual” GPMs if fully run.
Unfortunately Pre-OTs are pressured to “complete” OT2 rapidly so that they can pay for auditing on OT 4 and 5.
If they are quickied on OT2 and OT3 then it will take them a lot more OT5 auditing at high prices to be ready for Solo NOTs.
My confront of EVIL has come up over the years. DM is not a nice person.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I did of course understand that, and perhaps expressed myself badly.
I was making the comparison with OT 2 that in the latter whatever word you were using repeater tech with, also had an end word.

All this talk reminded me of the 'gunas' principal. Keeping a game in action by set codes...items you gravitate towards and the reciprocal ones you push away from.

No, really, listen for a moment. This guy I think is an ex who is using the concept of 'repeating' sets of opposite dramatizations along with 'tapping'. Integration is the goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzkZb05PKvE&feature=player_detailpage

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All this talk reminded me of the 'gunas' principal. Keeping a game in action by set codes...items you gravitate towards and the reciprocal ones you push away from.

No, really, listen for a moment. This guy I think is an ex who is using the concept of 'repeating' sets of opposite dramatizations along with 'tapping'. Integration is the goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzkZb05PKvE&feature=player_detailpage

He has the vocabulary of a scieno replete with four-letter words and coffee, but I didn't see any cigarette smoke.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All this talk reminded me of the 'gunas' principal. Keeping a game in action by set codes...items you gravitate towards and the reciprocal ones you push away from.

No, really, listen for a moment. This guy I think is an ex who is using the concept of 'repeating' sets of opposite dramatizations along with 'tapping'. Integration is the goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzkZb05PKvE&feature=player_detailpage

Er..a.. He doesn't look like an ex Scio to me. His TR 0 is terrible, very dispersed and jittery. Obviously he dabbles in the occult and knows a few things about energy flows, etc..

He has a nice dog and his place looks comfortable and well kept. He seems like a nice guy.
Lakey

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I know. But after glossing over about 30 of his vids, he does use all the jargon including 'theta' etc. Says he could not afford to release his accumulated energies through the medium.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Those are amazing wave photos, Hat. Looks like liquid gold.

Beautiful.

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I know. But after glossing over about 30 of his vids, he does use all the jargon including 'theta' etc. Says he could not afford to release his accumulated energies through the medium.

How or where did you find his other vids?

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

He is Rich2150x on youtube. He, like all the other semi clairvoyants, is a bit too...BUT his info is not unlike that of Alex Collier whom I admire.

This fellow does not take himself too seriously. Not like David Icke etc. He thinks we are causative in co creating most everything we experience. So believing we are the effect of off world dominators or agendas is something talked about very tongue in cheek. He is a very funny guy though quite hyper. He has a lot of insight to share.

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

His TR 0 is terrible, very dispersed and jittery. Obviously he dabbles in the occult and knows a few things about energy flows, etc..

He has a nice dog and his place looks comfortable and well kept. He seems like a nice guy.

Err, emotional roller-coaster = PTS

I saw two nice dogs.

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I liked his dogs.