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

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well, here's an example of the obvious.

Hubbard says it takes a group of [STRIKE]OT's[/STRIKE] people to handle an area.

And here are [STRIKE]"OT's"[/STRIKE] people handing Marc and handling Marty. LOL

The only thing they have is words, ie OT= really just a person or no clear, no OT soul astronauts, no cause over matter, energy, space or time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGi7uQV-E9o#t=24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4

See my reply to Helluvahoax above. Its a shame, you were in the conversation during the whole time I was exchanging posts with SOT. You should have known that I was not endorsing any of the pieces of tech which I was rattling off and that I listed those only to respond out of courtesy to SOT's request to provide him some Hubbard material for HIM to analyze. I never thought much of Obnosis. It was very boring and didn't do anything to improve my perception or make me smarter.

We were told to look at a person and describe exactly what we saw. Some people would say, "The person has eyes and he has ears and teeth'' However, the person would be sitting sideways and not be facing us. We were flunked because we could only see his right eye, his right ear and a few teeth on the right side of his mouth. We were told to state only exactly what we saw and not extrapolate any data from unseen areas. We had assumed the the left side of his face was normal and that was considered a flunk. Any benefit Obnosis had ended right there, there was nothing more to learn from it and yet we were drilled for maybe 20 to 30 minutes on this on a recurring basis. This is more of a kindergarten or 1st grade study, it could even be done by pre-schoolers. Anyone over 5 or 6 years old would get nothing from drilling this more than 5 minutes.

Read a Sherlock Holmes book and learn how one can really discern things and separate out truths. I learned an awful lot from Conan Doyle just through reading a few Sherlock Holmes novels. With Hubbard, an infantile, 1st grade type drill was done over and over, usually when stats were down. I don't believe that anyone was brought into present time or could view things any clearer by doing the Obnosis drill. It should have been done once for maybe 5 minutes and then it should bee signed off forever. The tiny bit of learning which took place was extremely small and being forced to do it over and over throughout the year was an over run which made staff more prone to make mistakes.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

you lost me there.

Can you explain? what one point?

call me dumb, I can't connect the dots.

What you're asking is dumb. I don't think you are that dumb but that you are just messing around with me. What scares me is that someone with your inability to read a few easy sentences and make sense out of them is one of my major critics,

I just wrote you a post above, which I was writing while you were sending this post. Read that post of mine just above this post of yours and I spell things out even clearer for you than in the post which you don't understand. If you STILL don't get the simple concept which I am presenting, there is nothing more I can do to help you. If that is the case, maybe you should enroll in a night school class in English. I would suggest you look up the words and make sure you have all the definitions straight but I am not going to do that because I know that you will bash me and Hubbard if I recommend you do that.

You know, long before Hubbard was born, there was gentleman pretty good with words and definitions named Noah Webster, Maybe he has written up some data on how to understand and absorb what you read. Maybe you should check that out because there is nothing else I can think of to recommend for you.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What you're asking is dumb. I don't think you are that dumb but that you are just messing around with me. What scares me is that someone with your inability to read a few easy sentences and make sense out of them is one of my major critics,

I just wrote you a post above, which I was writing while you were sending this post. Read that post of mine just above this post of yours and I spell things out even clearer for you than in the post which you don't understand. If you STILL don't get the simple concept which I am presenting, there is nothing more I can do to help you. If that is the case, maybe you should enroll in a night school class in English. I would suggest you look up the words and make sure you have all the definitions straight but I am not going to do that because I know that you will bash me and Hubbard if I recommend you do that.

You know, long before Hubbard was born, there was gentleman pretty good with words and definitions named Noah Webster, Maybe he has written up some data on how to understand and absorb what you read. Maybe you should check that out because there is nothing else I can think of to recommend for you.
Lakey

jeepers, can't you just say what the point you said,

I am asking about?

and answer it?

I'm just not sure what point you said to HH. I'm just asking for clarification.

BTW, don't worry, I don't mind the ad hom nor invalidation. It has no effect on me.

Here's the post I'm referring to, and the question in red.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...he-Apollo-1973&p=986343&viewfull=1#post986343​

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

you lost me there.

Can you explain? what one point?

call me dumb, I can't connect the dots.

SOT ASKED ME FOR A LIST OF EXAMPLES OF WHERE HUBBARD TOOK THE WORK OF OTHERS, MODIFIED IT AND CLAIMED IT AS HIS OWN.

I PROVIDED HIM A LIST OF ABOUT 6 ITEMS. THE POINT IS THAT YOU, GIZMO AND HELLUVA ASSUMED THAT I THOUGHT THAT ALL THOSE ITEMS WERE GREAT

EXAMPLES OF HUBBARD TECH. HELLUVA COULD BE EXCUSED FROM MAKING THIS ERROR BECAUSE HE JUST ENTERED THE DISCUSSION AND MAY NOT HAVE READ ANY EARLIER POSTS.

YOU, HOWEVER, JUST ASSUMED THAT I THOUGHT THAT OBNOSIS WAS WONDERFUL. ACTUALLY I DO NOT LIKE OBNOSIS AND THINK IT IS PRETTY WORTHLESS.

SOT ASKED FOR A LIST ITEMS WHICH HUBBARD ALTERED. HE DID NOT ASK FOR A LIST OF ITEMS WHICH I LIKE AND WHICH HUBBARD ALTERED.


YOU AND GIZMO ASSUME THAT I LIKE AND APPROVE OF ALL THE ITEMS WHICH I GAVE TO SOT TO ANALYZE but YOUR ASSUMPTION IS INCORRECT.

IN FACT, YOU ALL KEEP DOING THAT, ANYTHING WHICH I MENTION WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUBBARD, YOU BASH ME FOR. YOU ASSUME THAT I AM IN

FAVOR OF IT EVEN IF I AM WRITING AN ARTICLE AGAINST IT.

I believe that you guys don't really read my posts. Instead you scan them looking for KEY WORDS. You find me talking about OT III and maybe I am against it but you don't bother to read what I'm saying about it and assume that I am promoting it and start bashing me and it. It's really an annoying trait which you'all have. So far I have been patient and am trying to keep our communication line open, but your method of posting is becoming very annoying and my patience is wearing thin.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

SOT ASKED ME FOR A LIST OF EXAMPLES OF WHERE HUBBARD TOOK THE WORK OF OTHERS, MODIFIED IT AND CLAIMED IT AS HIS OWN.

I PROVIDED SOT A LIST OF ABOUT 6 ITEMS. THE POINT IS THAT YOU, GIZMO AND HELLUVA ASSUMMED THAT I THOUGHT THAT ALL THOSE ITEMS WERE GREAT EXAMPLES OF

HUBBARD TECH. HELLUVA COULD BE EXCUSED FROM MAKING THIS ERROR BECAUSE HE JUST ENTERED THE DISCUSSION AND MAY NOT HAVE READY ANY EARLIER POSTS.

YOU, HOWEVER, JUST ASSUMED THAT I THOUGHT THAT OBNOSIS WAS WONDERFUL I DID NOT LIKE OBNOSIS AND THINK IT IS PRETTY WORTHLESS. SOT ASK FOR A

LIST ITEMS WHICH HUBBARD ALTERED. HE DID NOT ASK FOR A LIST OF ITEMS WHICH I LIKE AND WHICH HUBBARD ALTERED.


YOU, GIZMO, AND YOUR OTHER FRIEND ASSUMED THAT I LIKE AND APPROVED ALL THE ITEMS WHICH I GAVE TO SOT TO ANALYZE AND YOUR ASSUMPTION IS INCORRECT.

IN FACT, YOU ALL KEEP DOING THAT, ANYTHING WHICH I MENTION WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUBBARD, YOU BASH ME FOR. YOU ASSUME THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF IT

EVEN IF I AM WRITING AN ARTICLE BASHING IT.

I believe that you guys don't really read my posts. Instead you sort of scan it looking for KEY WORDS. You find me talking about OT III and maybe I am bashing OT III but you

don't read what I say about it. You see a keyword, OTIII, and without reading my text, you start bashing OT III and bashing me for promoting it and being in favor of it.

That is my point, you are extrapolating what I must have said based on a key word which you notice rather than actually reading what I have said. Then you first bash me for

being in favor of something I don't like and then you bash the topic I just wrote about AS IF WE HAD A DISAGREEMENT but HALF THE TIME I AGREE WITH YOU BUT SINCE YOU

DON'T BOTHER TO READ WHAT I SAY AND JUST KEY YOUR RESPONSES TO CERTAIN KEY WORDS, YOU BASH ME AS YOUR OPPONENT EVEN WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU!!!

I'm only asking you to PLEASE answer my question. You just gave me a "no answer" and complicated it.

What is the point HH said that you disagreed with?

I asking you specifically for that point HH made and you disagreed with, and nothing else.

You agreed with everything HH said except one point, so I'm not sure what the the point is that you disagreed with,

and I am asking for the point you disagree with, to discuss it. :confused2:

 

[DoneDeal]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm only asking you to PLEASE answer my question. You just gave me a "no answer" and complicated it.

What is the point HH said that you disagreed with?

I asking you specifically for that point HH made and you agreed with, and nothing else.

You sure demand people answer your questions man.

I remember doing that once in here, over and over to the same person, I came out looking like the ass I am.

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You sure demand people answer your questions man.

I remember doing that once in here, over and over to the same person, I came out looking like the ass I am.

kimo sabe, donedeal.

I'm not using an emeter. LOL

Truth is truth, and I'm asking for it.

How is one to believe anybody here without asking hard questions.

WTF, I never asked the hard questions of scientology when I got involved nor was I brought up to ask the hard questions, nor was I educated into Rhetoric nor was I educated into doing due diligence.

Now, I have learned some things since escaping from the cult of scientology.

Hi-Yo Silver!

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

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm only asking you to PLEASE answer my question. You just gave me a "no answer" and complicated it.

What is the point HH said that you disagreed with?

I asking you specifically for that point HH made and you disagreed with, and nothing else.

You agreed with everything HH said except one point, so I'm not sure what the the point is that you disagreed with,

and I am asking for the point you disagree with, to discuss it. :confused2:

I am not capable of giving you an answer, maybe this guy Sid Caesar will be able to communicate it to you. He speaks in French, German, Italian and Japanese (well, it sure sounds like those languages to me) but certainly in one of his monologues, you will find the answer to your question. The answer man starts his explanation at 38 seconds into the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBLM16fQ1es


If you didn't find your answer there, Gib, perhaps you will hear it on this video taken from the old Ernie Kovac's show. The answers start at about 32 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfzQPe1K66s


If that doesn't help you Gib, I am afraid that I can't help you. I only have full mastery of English but I don't have enough mastery of it to be able to convey to you the point which I was making to Helluva. Maybe I need to go back and do a refresher course on the TR's! Damn it and I thought I had mastered those communication skills and knew standard English pretty well. Oh well, back to the drawing boards.

Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm only asking you to PLEASE answer my question. You just gave me a "no answer" and complicated it.

What is the point HH said that you disagreed with?

I asking you specifically for that point HH made and you disagreed with, and nothing else.

You agreed with everything HH said except one point, so I'm not sure what the the point is that you disagreed with,

and I am asking for the point you disagree with, to discuss it. :confused2:

I've given my point clearly 3 separate times now and you claim that I am not giving it to you. Below are the definitions of the word "point" from the Meriam Webster Dictionary.

I am using the word as a noun and the nearest definition which matches how i am using the word is number two below, a particular detail of an idea or argument which I highlight in blue. What sense of the word are you using?

Maybe the problem is that you are looking for a point which HH made in the body of his post to me and you are equating that with something which he said. That is probably where we are not connecting. HH immediately started talking to me about Obnosis and he led off by telling me that I am way off base on Obnosis and then he gives lots of reasons why Obnosis is no good.

Now. here is the point where I think you and I lose touch, you are wanting to know what text he wrote or said which I object to. Where HH and I disagree was NOT IN THE BODY OF HIS TEXT. The point I disagree with was not voiced directly in his text but it was tacitly implied in the opening of his post. He stated that I am way off base believing that Obnosis is good technology but I don't believe and never have believed that Obnosis is good technology. He opens with an assumption that I like something which I don't like and then makes a lot of comments which are not really relevant because I already agree with them while in his mind he believes that I oppose them. In other words, he thinks that he is arguing with an adversary but he is really preaching to the choir. I am in his choir because I hold the same beliefs about Obnosis as he does. That is the point where my disagreement enters with him. It is not in what he says but rather it is in his incorrect assumption made at the start of his post.

Don't you see that if he opens his post with an incorrect assumption about where I stand on the subject being discussed then whatever he writes afterwards doesn't really apply to me? Therefore, the point in his post where he loses me and my disagreement starts is after the first few words when I realize that he falsely believes that I like Obnosis and am promoting it to others.

I hope that you can grasp this concept because I simply can't make it any clearer to you and I don't believe that anyone else can either and this is it, I am not going to take any more time to try and clear this up with you.
Lakey

point noun \ˈpȯint\
: an idea that you try to make other people accept or understand

: a particular detail of an idea or argument

the point : the main or most important idea of something that is said or written

Full Definition of POINT

1a (1) : an individual detail : item (2) : a distinguishing detail <tact is one of her strong points>
b : the most important essential in a discussion or matter <missed the whole point of the joke>
c : cogency
2
obsolete : physical condition
3
: an end or object to be achieved : purpose <did not see what point there was in continuing the discussion>
4
a : a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates
b (1) : a narrowly localized place having a precisely indicated position <walked to a point 50 yards north of the building> (2) : a particular place : locality <have come from distant points>
c (1) : an exact moment <at this point I was interrupted> (2) : a time interval immediately before something indicated : verge <at the point of death>
d (1) : a particular step, stage, or degree in development <had reached the point where nothing seemed to matter anymore> (2) : a definite position in a scale
5
a : the terminal usually sharp or narrowly rounded part of something : tip
b : a weapon or tool having such a part and used for stabbing or piercing: as (1) : arrowhead (2) : spearhead
c (1) : the contact or discharge extremity of an electric device (as a spark plug or distributor) (2) chiefly British : an electric outlet
6
a : a projecting usually tapering piece of land or a sharp prominence
b (1) : the tip of a projecting body part (2) : tine 2 (3) plural : the extremities or markings of the extremities of an animal especially when of a color differing from the rest of the body
c : a railroad switch
d : the head of the bow of a stringed instrument
7
: a short musical phrase; especially : a phrase in contrapuntal music
8
a : a very small mark
b (1) : punctuation mark; especially : period 5a (1) (2) : decimal point
9
: a lace for tying parts of a garment together used especially in the 16th and 17th centuries
10
: one of usually 11 divisions of a heraldic shield that determines the position of a charge
11
a : one of the 32 equidistant spots of a compass card for indicating direction
b : the difference of 111⁄4 degrees between two such successive points
c : a direction indicated by a compass point <from all points of the compass>
12
: a small detachment ahead of an advance guard or behind a rear guard
13
a : needlepoint 1
b : lace made with a bobbin
14
: one of 12 spaces marked off on each side of a backgammon board
15
: a unit of measurement: as
a (1) : a unit of counting in the scoring of a game or contest (2) : a unit used in evaluating the strength of a bridge hand
b : a unit of academic credit
c (1) : a unit used in quoting prices (as of stocks, bonds, and commodities) (2) plural : a percentage of the face value of a loan often added as a placement fee or service charge (3) : a percentage of the profits of a business venture (as a motion-picture production)
d : a unit of about 1⁄72 inch used especially to measure the size of type
16
: the action of pointing: as
a : the rigidly intent attitude of a hunting dog marking game for a gunner
b : the action in dancing of extending one leg and arching the foot so that only the tips of the toes touch the floor
17
: a position of a player in various games (as lacrosse); also : the player of such a position
18
: a number thrown on the first roll of the dice in craps which the player attempts to repeat before throwing a seven — compare missout, pass 13

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for the nice post, Cakemaker. It is nice to receive a sane and rational post.

I remember several of those discussions and there is no doubt that what you say is true. However, it seems to me that Hubbard had a completely different take on us being Gods as compared to that of Eastern religions. I'm no expert but what I got from studying Eastern religions is that the gist of their beliefs is that all beings split off from one source, i.e. one God in Western terms. They believe in reincarnation and see life as a series of trials, tribulations, struggles and life lessons in which individual beings, pieces of God if you will, are trying to get back to source and reunite with God.

When I first encountered these ideas in my 20's they resonated well with me. These ideas do treat life as a game, a game of attempting to reunite with our source. The idea makes me feel good and makes me happy but I have no idea if there is any truth to it. It sure sounds nice. I do see it as being superior to Western religions which require people to have faith in the teachings of some supreme deity, wherein it is stated that one God created the Universe and if we obey such and such a set of rules, we will end up in heaven but otherwise we will burn in hell. If either of those religious approaches are true, I hope it is the Eastern approach which is true!

Getting back to Hubbard, though, he believed that we all are fallen Gods, he does not believe that when we are salvaged, with his training and processing, we merge with an original God. Hubbard believes that each one of us is totally an individual. He rejects the approach of Eastern religions that we reunite with our earlier source ( Rejects , but does he manage to refute ? ).

What he is looking for is for each of us to go through his processes to regain our "Godhood", then pay homage to him as the greatest God of all and then go out into this Universe and bring others back to a God like state so that they in turn can pay homage to and adulate Hubbard. It is a game were only Hubbard wins big, but each of the rest of us who follow him is supposed win as well by recognizing and acknowledging Hubbard. ( aka : a guru ? )

I believe that he envisioned that when all of us beings, are rehabilitated as Gods in our own right, we should then ban together and erase the Physical Universe and form a new more ethical and aesthetic universe with Hubbard as it's supreme deity. Now that I know a lot more of what Hubbard was really about, his visions regarding how the universe is constructed are the visions which scare me the most. ( scare seems the direction he desired to go ) Both the Eastern and Western religions versions are preferable to Hubbard's vision as far as I am concerned.
Lakey

Well seems an opinion is what is believed and rather than this right / wrong thing it is more different views. Also seem a belief is a thought one keeps on thinking - that simple. All it takes to is for a person to change their mind

Oh, reality to an individual is what is perceived by the individual. You see Unicorns & mermaids ? Yep, you say you see
'em they can be your reality - no way I can begin to refute what another gleans from their own imagination.

So, a poster like - for example - Lakey can post away about how Hubbard ( or any other person, dead, alive, or imagined ) says this or that & it "works". OK, it can be true for him. No honest way to have an opinion of his opinion - he believes it & that is what matters.

People leaving scientology like rats off the sinking Titanic are real & the musicians that stood playing music on the aft deck of the Titanic as it slid below the waves also had their own reality. ( That band apparently sounded good right up to being drowned out )

Most likely, to me, we as humans haven't needed to "salvage" this planet or our self. Yet, Lord only knows, there is no short supply of people who are certain they " KNOW BEST " for the rest of us.

They know we'd be better off, more ethical, more moral, more whatever they think we ought to be to SUIT their own personal view ! yet, it would seem to me most people would rather have a CHOICE than have a choice made FOR them by someone else. [ Don't get off on cult adherents here ! ]

I just read in something by someone "...leave the conflict to the conflicted & mind your own business... " [/SIZE] That one little line could be a paradigm shift...for some.

Anyway, might be if people were more concerned with their own well being & relationship with their own inner being & stayed out of others peoples life choices that they'd be better off... take some dealing with the individual ego involved, but, would that "work "? LOL ~

[Mentioning the stomping on that huge HELP button is writing a whole book so - skipped here - ]

Perhaps, we don't need to be chasing a constantly moving "carrot" ( oh, call it...say...stable or perfection ) but what we need to do is smell the beautiful flowers around us.

Could it be Hubbard made great efforts to sell man on individuation away from the universal source so as separate man from his true alliance ( strength ) with Universal Intelligence - Source Energy ? Hmm.

But, some are going to continue to not only believe Hubbard but promote his " work "... hey, each is entitled to their own reality & again...............I just got to go with what somebody decides to follow ( believe ) they are entitled to entirely.

The fun part when one person starts offering an opinion of an opinion as it matters at to anyone & it doesn't ( and is highly reflective ) of the person who felt compelled to do the opinion of the opinion of another.

Anyway..... how about where did men with alligator heads, or bird heads, or wings, fish heads, mermaids , mermen - all those odd creatures carved in stone so many thousands of years ago ? Did Hubbard have that wired or was that alien experiments trying to create a 'workable" race of slaves?

Those dang pyramids. How did those stones get cut & moved so fast ? Gravity defying tools? How does Hubbard explain all that ?

And the pyramids now seem to have not only been an aligned landing beacons but some kind of battery ( energy source ) we haven't yet figured out but suspect it was some kind of microwave vibrational energy source that made propulsion possible free from gravational pull ? Hubbard probably understood that intelligence but knew it was too much for mere humans to handle ?

If there were these alien E's that bred with the humans they created then who are the descendants of these half God's ( well, part ET's' - LOL ~ ).... wouldn't these be some sorta bright folks ? ( Particularly when we consider that from Adam & Eve we are INBRED .. at best )?


Is that Hubbard built a trap to capture not free people ?

Yeah, I know, devote 20, 30 - maybe more - years to study, learn, teach, try to apply, chase more of & all the while feeling somehow "broken" from perfection but better than the unenlightened as friends, family, loved ones, jobs . HELL, LIFE ITSELF slips away... Ah so hard to just drop it ALL for what it really is which just ain't the reality we once created it to be.

All, I believe, can change their mind about what they once believed or believe now and I guess has I also accept that some do not want to ever change what they believe, so,

Long Live Hubbard Supporters !

Now, I'm off to do what I created as my perception of reality & that is have fun.



Perhaps it is true we get what we put out attention on ?


Love you all & wish you heaps loads of whatever it is you want !

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<snip>
Maybe the problem is that you are looking for a point which HH made in the body of his post to me
<snip>
HH immediately started talking to me about Obnosis and he led off by telling me that I am way off base on Obnosis and then he gives lots of reasons why Obnosis is no good. ...[FONT]
Lakey

Damn !
I am so slow !
Every post is made directly to Lakey !
There is no post in this thread that applies or is addressed to the readership of any other reader on the board than Lakey !
Every post made is TO Lakey !

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You criticize but offer no better theory to show us the way. All I can thing of to say to your comments above is "Yawn..."

I'm not sure who "US" is unless you got a mouse in your pocket but Shirley you can't be serious.

I say something is nonsense, you want me to replace it with something that makes sense that you can follow, otherwise you
will be bored with me
the thought of it is more than I can bear

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm not sure who "US" is unless you got a mouse in your pocket but Shirley you can't be serious.

I say something is nonsense, you want me to replace it with something that makes sense that you can follow, otherwise you
will be bored with me
the thought of it is more than I can bear

Who is Shirley? Is she cute? How do you know that she is not serious? How about giving me her phone number.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<snip> THE POINT IS THAT YOU, GIZMO AND HELLUVA ASSUMED THAT I THOUGHT THAT ALL THOSE ITEMS WERE GREAT

YOU, HOWEVER, JUST ASSUMED THAT I THOUGHT THAT OBNOSIS WAS WONDERFUL. . <snip>

.


YOU AND GIZMO ASSUME THAT I LIKE AND APPROVE OF ALL THE ITEMS WHICH I GAVE TO SOT TO ANALYZE but YOUR ASSUMPTION IS INCORRECT.

IN FACT, YOU ALL KEEP DOING THAT, ANYTHING WHICH I MENTION WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUBBARD, YOU BASH ME FOR. YOU ASSUME THAT I AM IN
FAVOR OF IT EVEN IF I AM WRITING AN ARTICLE AGAINST IT. [ Are you yelling ?]

I believe that you guys don't really read my posts. [ Dat be true 4 me - most of your ramblings strike me as just far too obtuse for my preference in reading materials ] Instead you scan [ scan ? yep. your stuff gets glanced at - not studied ] them looking for KEY WORDS. You find me talking about OT III and maybe I am against it but you don't bother to read what I'm saying about it and assume that I am promoting it and start bashing me and it.

It's really an annoying trait which you'all have. [ Thank you for telling me that.]

So far I have been patient and am trying to keep our communication line open, but your method of posting is becoming very annoying and my patience is wearing thin ( mirror, mirror, on the wall !)Lakey

It is so nice to have to have someone who assumes what they feel I - and others - have assumed - tries to chide us for our assuming.

Isn't THAT funny ?

This is getting funnier all the time !

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Who is Shirley? Is she cute? How do you know that she is not serious? How about giving me her phone number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is so nice to have to have someone who assumes what they feel I - and others - have assumed - tries to chide us for our assuming.

Isn't THAT funny ?

This is getting funnier all the time !

Bad sentence structure and incorrect use of English in your first sentence. Could you please tell me the point which you are trying to make. I really need that point because I want to comment on it. Please take the time to properly tell all of us here on the thread exactly what point it is that you are making,
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is so nice to have to have someone who assumes what they feel I - and others - have assumed - tries to chide us for our assuming.

Isn't THAT funny ?

This is getting funnier all the time !

That's interesting. I believe that if people don't know something then it is alright to assume. Once they find out the truth, if their assumption was correct there is no need to change it but if they find out it was incorrect, then they should correct it. Of course I have no problem in your making assumptions. I am only chiding you for not correcting an incorrect assumption once it is pointed out to you.

In closing, I have made a great effort to keep an open communication line with you and I was willing to spend a lot of time doing that but since you show that you are unable to correct an incorrect assumption, further communications between us is just a waste of my time. I won't be responding any further to any of your posts but I wish you the best.
Lakey

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Who is Shirley? Is she cute? How do you know that she is not serious? How about giving me her phone number.

you can keep the shirley's and the brenda's and the myrtles

i like the susan's the marilee's and the kate's...

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

delete

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

delete