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

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All of the above is what is on my mind today, as I listen to Pet Sounds, "I just wasn't made for these times."

The funny part today is that I have not said a damn thing about this topic of creativity. I'm wrong about everything.

I love that feeling of realizing how wrong I am.
Means I can smile and not take myself seriously.

 

[SPsince83]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I thought it was the other way round - Paul McCartney heard Pet Sounds (and was very impressed with it) before he worked on Sgt. Pepper?

I stand corrected. Thanks. I like being corrected when I am mistaken.

 

[strativarius]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I stand corrected. Thanks. I like being corrected when I am mistaken.

Yes, me too. I can never understand why some people get shirty about it. Obviously the way it's done has some bearing, but if someone sent me a PM and said 'hey stratty, you spelled such and such wrong' (in reality who is going to bother) I'd really appreciate it. How else are we to learn stuff?

I very often feel tempted to PM someone and tell them that they accidentally deleted a closing ']' from a [noparse][/quote][/noparse] tag and that's why their post is fucked up, but 99% of the time I don't bother, although I've done it once or twice. A proper little busybody me.

Edit: Just seen a case in point. How someone can look at this and not say to themselves 'my post doesn't look right, what can I do to fix it' is beyond me. Hint. You need one of these '[' Terril.

EDIT: A day later and the broken post above remains broken. I always feel the poster has a responsibilty to fix it because otherwise it's impossible for others to navigate back to the post that's being quoted if you see what I mean.

stratty - anal retentive thread nazi.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I stand corrected. Thanks. I like being corrected when I am mistaken.

Me too.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

From Wikipedia:

Pet Sounds is the eleventh studio album by the American rock band the Beach Boys. Released on May 16, 1966, it initially met a lukewarm critical and commercial reception in the United States, but received immediate success abroad, where British publications declared it "the most progressive pop album ever". It charted at number two in the UK but number ten in the US, a significantly lower placement than the band's preceding albums. In later years, the album garnered enormous worldwide acclaim by critics and musicians alike, and is regarded as one of the most influential pieces in the history of popular music.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the eighth studio album by the English rock band the Beatles. Released on 1 June 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success, spending 27 weeks at the top of the albums chart in the United Kingdom and 15 weeks at number one in the United States. Time magazine declared it "a historic departure in the progress of music" and the New Statesman praised its elevation of pop to the level of fine art. It won four Grammy Awards in 1968, including Album of the Year, the first rock LP to receive this honour.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It's been a very quiet day so fa, 7:00 pm<r on the Apollo thread,

One of my favorite Beatle's songs started rattling around in my hear. It has a nice playful energy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvGCwIQVEo4

Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Do you think the Smart car from Germany is a relatively new concept?

Not a chance! Check out the 1959 DKW 1000 from Auto Union, the same company that originally made the Audi.

This car is better looking that the smart car and has some features which it doesn't have:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBXx52nkCm8

Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

A really nice compact car of the 1950's was made by Willy's Overland Co. They are much better known for making Jeeps during WWII. At one time in the early 1920's Willy's was second in passenger car sales to Ford Motor Co. It was not a close race, #1 Ford sold as high 2 million Model T's in a single year while Willy's was selling around 350,000 but it was still 2nd place.

During WWII, Willys and Ford both received government contracts to produce Jeeps. Willys became famous for jeeps. After WWII, they concentrated on Jeeps and made good money selling them to the public. That's probably how the SUV craze first got started. Willy's built no passenger cars right after the war. They decided to re enter the passenger car market in 1952 with their Willy's Aero line of compact cars.

I heard their slogan on TV in 1953 and never forgot it. "Willys looks like a million, runs on a penny and stops on a dime." What incredible ad copy, don't you agree? The Willys Aero line was an outstanding line of compact cars!! I think that for 1953 the design is fantastic! Also, it was a well built car, extremely modern for the day. The car was built in the USA for only 1952 to 1955. They sold pretty good the first two years, about 45,000 a year, not too bad for a small independent car company like Willys Overland.

Henry J. Kaiser had started his own car company in 1946 but by 1952 his brand was in decline. He bought Willys Motors in 1954. He did not want their car line up. He was closing down car production in the USA and was moving car production to Argentina. He wanted the Willys Overland Company so he could make Jeeps and not compete with GM, Ford and Chrysler.

Kaiser Corporation built the Jeeps in the USA in Toledo, Ohio all the way until 1971. Henry J. died in 1967 but his company, Kaiser Industries kept going. In 1971, American Motors bought the Jeep line and built them through 1986. At that time AMC was on the verge of collapse so Lee Iococa at Chrsyler bought them out and gained the rights to the Jeep brand. You have got to hand it to Iacoca. Having Jeep as one of their brands saved Chrysler from going out of business several times, the latest being in 2009. Jeep was always big for Chrysler, selling about 500,000 units a year just in the USA. Now, being managed by Fiat-Chrysler, the Jeep line is now approaching 1 million units a year just in the USA with sever hundred thousand more being sold in Canada, Europe and Asia.

With all that said, check out this video of the 1952 Willys Aero line. For 1952, the design and details still look surprisingly fresh and even a bit modern:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYqJ92T4lOw

Oh yes, one last thing. U.S. production ended in 1955 but the Kaiser passenger car brand continued to be built in Argentina from 1958 to 1962. Willys went into production in Brazil in 1960. Here is a photo of the 1960 Brazilian model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willys_Aero#/media/File:'50s_Willys.JPG

Finally, the dies wore out and the Kaiser designed cars, originally designed around 1950, were beginning to look outdated so production of the Kaiser was discontinued. Willy's design was more timeless and their Brazilian model shouldered on for throught the 69's. Finally, Willys finally came to an end but Jeep went on to unprecedented success!!
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well I guess the thread died.

Here is something weird I was watching. I mean really weird.
The turtle is obviously not random in his efforts to play here.

It never occurred to me that turtles enjoyed sports, much less soccer.

[video=youtube;5KPzX8RXems]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KPzX8RXems[/video]

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well I guess the thread died.

Here is something weird I was watching. I mean really weird.
The turtle is obviously not random in his efforts to play here.

It never occurred to me that turtles enjoyed sports, much less soccer.

[video=youtube;5KPzX8RXems]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KPzX8RXems[/video]

I can't believe how active and athletic that turtle is, really amazing! Maybe that is one of the turtles that morphed into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!

Yes, yesterday certainly gave a preview of how this thread will die. It was dead around here, that was for sure. Well, if this is it, Sayonara to the thread. I doubt if it will die at this point. Probably Maria, you could get it going again. I can't and no longer want to and CO2 could but doesn't want to so the ball is in your court.

You know, last Saturday we had 7,000 views in a 24 hour period. I know a lot of the views are bogus, as Moderator 3 explained but we were running about 2,500 a day and to suddenly do 7,000, some of that has got to be real. That entire day, there seemed to be about 20 people viewing all day long, about 5 members and 15 guests. About 10-12 pages of posting, representing 120 reply's were being written every day for about 4-5 days, by far the most the thread has ever done.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I can't believe how active and athletic that turtle is, really amazing! Maybe that is one of the turtles that morphed into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!

Yes, yesterday certainly gave a preview of how this thread will die. It was dead around here, that was for sure. Well, if this is it, Sayonara to the thread. I doubt if it will die at this point. Probably Maria, you could get it going again. I can't and no longer want to and CO2 could but doesn't want to so the ball is in your court.

You know, last Saturday we had 7,000 views in a 24 hour period. I know a lot of the views are bogus, as Moderator 3 explained but we were running about 2,500 a day and to suddenly do 7,000, some of that has got to be real. That entire day, there seemed to be about 20 people viewing all day long, about 5 members and 15 guests. About 10-12 pages of posting, representing 120 reply's were being written every day for about 4-5 days, by far the most the thread has ever done.
Lakey

Lakey

I doubt I am going to post here in order to keep the thread alive. If it lives it will be because folks want to talk to each other here. If anyone posts at me or in response to things I have posted I will always answer. But I probably wouldn't post just to post, without a thing to say.

Here is the dilemma and I wonder what others thing of this and any opinions.

I myself over time have seen that I don't feel good criticizing other exes or whatever they choose to believe. This means that even though I am not using terms or tech related to Scn, I know some exes do. At the start I didn't know anyone and said whatever was on my mind.

This caused some good responses but also caused two types of less great reactions. First, I guess my style did not go over, even with those here who like me do not use the tech at all for any reason and would rather forget the terminology. I have yet to really befriend anyone who shares that trait with me, unless I am unaware that someone who I have responded to feels the same. If anything, some who feel that way have had a pretty negative reaction to me.

Second are those who use Scn tech in FZ or Indie, which I assume includes you, CO2, Hats, Terril and others. All of those folks have been cordial and I've enjoyed the exchange with them here. Since they are the ones I've befriended then I feel less than inclined to criticize their beliefs in Scientology tech....even though I don't share that belief. And while I would love to talk to anyone about why some specific piece of the tech doesn't work for me, I would only want to do it in a non-attacking way, for mutual understanding.

Third, there is only so much energy I can expend on the entire topic of Scn. I posted some things and surprisingly the only real feedback came from those I mentioned in the second point above. Isn't it weird that those who were kind and who even argued fairly with me (and against my logic) were not the ones supposedly fully out and who have given up on all the tech the way I have?

Finally, I can't be the one responsible to keep any thread alive including this one. I will post when I have something to post or if someone responds to my post. I also lurk a lot and check for pms which I do occasionally get.

If the thread dies, it dies. I don't think it should live artificially on life support. If it lives on its own, then that is great. I really enjoy the thread and all the posters here. Keep in mind that it is the summer and people actually go outside, take vacations, etc. It's likely that posters have an analog life too.

Because I am more a techie I was never really AS interested in the CoS topic and always was more interested in the tech end of things. If you look at my posts they are about the tech and less about CoS. It's just what I am interested in. If what interests me is not politically correct there is not much I can do about that.

I don't agree with any of the tech, not one single term or concept. And I do enjoy understanding and talking about why. BUT I can't do it by myself as if I was talking to a wall. It's only interesting when in conversation with others. Unfortunately I doubt that those who believe in the tech are all that enthused to understand the problems I see, most anywhere I look, whenever I look at the 'tech' (which as you know I don't consider to be 'tech' at all. Sigh. So therefore other than sex, lies and videotape (wasn't that the movie) what is there to talk about?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

About that turtle. Anyone who would claim that animals do not have souls are really dumb.

Even the medieval Christian scholars agreed that animals have souls.

perfectly good ones too.

That turtle is really awesome for working so hard to push that ball around and for keeping track of his dog-opponent's every move.
Now THAT I find way more interesting than how slow the thread was for the last day or so.

It's fascinating to see such a determined being at work.

 

[strativarius]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

About that turtle. [highlight]Anyone who would claim that animals do not have souls are really dumb[/highlight].

Even the medieval Christian scholars agreed that animals have souls.

perfectly good ones too.

That turtle is really awesome for working so hard to push that ball around and for keeping track of his dog-opponent's every move.
Now THAT I find way more interesting than how slow the thread was for the last day or so.

It's fascinating to see such a determined being at work.

Ok Maria, then I just joined the ranks of the really dumb. I don't believe humans have 'souls', never mind other animals. That's not to say some animals aren't fantastically intelligent (far more than we give them credit for - especially birds) but souls? No, I don't think so.

 

[Hypatia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria,

I've always liked your contributions; both during my relatively short time here and previously, when I was lurking.

I like your observations, opinions and your recipes.

You're right about getting along with tekkies. As I see it, every ex should take a firm stand on the cherch and the madman who created it and the madman who runs it now.

I just don't want to judge other exes.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria,

I've always liked your contributions; both during my relatively short time here and previously, when I was lurking.

I like your observations, opinions and your recipes.

You're right about getting along with tekkies. As I see it, every ex should take a firm stand on the cherch and the madman who created it and the madman who runs it now.

I just don't want to judge other exes.

I agree with every word you said here.

As for the souls thing, let's just say that I do believe we are spiritual beings. And that other animals also are spiritual beings.

I realize that some of us are more to the empirical side and don't even allow for a spritual being in the equation of what a human is much less what an animal is.



Because your name is hypatia (perhaps you are neoplatonist too, like she was) it was tempting to give a proof for the animal soul (in response to your post) but I will refrain from acting out the guru-like trait that so annoyed some.

Edit: OOPs and I think I may have confused your post for strativarius, so forgive that please!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ok Maria, then I just joined the ranks of the really dumb. I don't believe humans have 'souls', never mind other animals. That's not to say some animals aren't fantastically intelligent (far more than we give them credit for - especially birds) but souls? No, I don't think so.

Strativarius, if I begin to extol the truth of the soul pretty soon I might have a few people angry with me.

But since now you responded.... let me say why I think it. If anyone objects that is ok. I have no authority so I am simply saying my own understanding of things.

I believe that the creator (no secret I am not an atheist) is love and that all that He made is loved, so none of it can perish or cease to be or be thrown away but that each being of whatever type made by the creator has eternity. Even trees and slugs; all of creation is beautiful. And the beautiful cannot die and is unassailable. Perhaps this is a very medieval view of reality, I did study ancient and medieval philosophy for years, and admit a huge admiration for the soul's way of feeling reality as opposed to the logical way of thinking which ascribes to the material world. I am a weird existentialst because I believe in experience but don't limit experience to this world only. I think that often the real argument against someone like me (yes I am giving you ammunition, the only one that could work even though I think it does not) is that the thought of spiritual reality is really a way to cope or feel comfort in the face of our future death. There are ways to feel, moods about life. In one mood, death does rule, and things are seen to die and this reality must be faced since with precision it seems to happen that way. In the world of death everything is critical of life and will destroy it for any infraction. Thus life attacking life and the struggle of wills and beliefs. In another mood the beings may experience something sublime of the creator's which makes them feel there is a beauty and reality beyond the perishings of this world. For them, in the world of life death is not a factor. This of course is all gibberish to the logical mind ir 'i'. Which is why after lots of philosophical study have come to view philosophy as limited and in a way logic as limited since it cannot feel so it can never respond with any answer which includes love and generosity and forgiveness.

Keep in mind that the i or consciousness is conceived by empiricists as in the brain, as I am sure you know. And that now scientists (Berkeley study?) are able to remove and implant memories. There is no mind except as the synapses ore strengthened and weakened. Thus to place all being as if it was in a mind, conscious or unconscious, may mean accepting that what we think of as 'i' is really ai, or brain activity, not more. If we take that as true. I don't.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...es-implanted-into-the-brains-of-sleeping-mice
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...mice-sleep-technique-one-day-used-humans.html

There is no way to prove my opinion above about soul as superior to any view of empirical consciousness or i to anyone and definitely it is not logical or arrivable via logic. So I am not egotistical enough to think I am attempting to prove something to you or anything. Just expressing my own opinion that while thinking in terms of soul is not logical, it can be felt and that feeling it is a valid way to ascertain it as real. I know souol is not provable because proofs usually revolve around a material universe methodology that does not know how to perceive anything outside itself, like being in a black box (a closed universe) all one's life and assuming there is nothing outside of it. A weird thing for me in Scientology tech is that it is more like the logical side since it seems often devoid of love altogether and reduces the soul and the souls decisions and events to mere processes and mental phenomena. Which I don't agree is correct. Thus for me scientology tech lacks the very things that constitute the eternal truths.

So I am not fighting with what you say since from what is perceivable you are very right. And I cannot claim to be an expert since love knows nothing and only feels. So love is blind and dumb and knows nothing.

Edit: And as a p.s., if the soul's way of feeling had ever been emphasized in Scientology, we would not have the ugly events of the past decades. Those sorts of unfeeling crusades based on the logic of MU or of policies are only possible in a machinic view of a thetan, whose way of knowing is entirely logical, fake and unfeeling. This is my opinion and I am only answering you. I am not trying to upset anyone who understands differently about thetans and so on. It's what I feel is true.

 

[strativarius]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Strativarius, if I begin to extol the truth of the soul pretty soon I might have a few people angry with me.

But since now you responded.... let me say why I think it.

I believe that the creator (no secret I am not an atheist) is love and that all that He made is loved, so none of it can perish or cease to be or be thrown away but that each being of whatever type made by the creator has eternity. Even trees and slugs; all of creation is beautiful. And the beautiful cannot die and is unassailable. Perhaps this is a very medieval view of reality, I did study ancient and medieval philosophy for years, and admit a huge affinity for the soul's way of feeling reality as opposed to the logical way of thinking which ascribes to the material world. I am a weird existentialst because I believe in experience but don't limit experience to this world only. I think that often the real argument against someone like me (yes I am giving you ammunition, the only one that could work even though I think it does not) is that the thought of spiritual reality is really a way to cope or feel comfort in the face of our future death. There are ways to feel, moods about life. In one mood, death does rule, and things are seen to die and this reality must be faced since with precision it seems to happen that way. In another mood the being may experience something sublime of the creator's which makes them feel there is a beauty and reality beyond the perishings of this world.

There is no way to prove it to anyone and definitely not logical or via logic. It is not logical but can only be felt. It is not provable because proofs usually revolve around material universe methodologies that don't know how to perceive anything outside itself, like being in a black box (a closed universe) all one's life and assuming there is nothing outside of it.

So I am not fighting with what you say since from what is perceivable you are very right.

Dear M. I'm not going to get into a quasi-philosophical discussion with you because I don't have the intellectual ammunition or the inclination. Personally I don't believe in 'The Creator', so we part company on that score alone. If there is a maker and all of us are destined to meet him at some time or another, well, then I'll know. Until then I'll remain agnostic. I say agnostic because there is still so much we have to learn about the universe.

AFAIAC you have a perfect right to believe whatever you want as long as what you do on account of your faith is not to the detriment of others. I'm certainly not going to get angry with you.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey

I doubt I am going to post here in order to keep the thread alive. If it lives it will be because folks want to talk to each other here. If anyone posts at me or in response to things I have posted I will always answer. But I probably wouldn't post just to post, without a thing to say.

On this point I could not agree with you more! I am in complete 100% agreement on all points! Everything you said applies to me as well.

Here is the dilemma and I wonder what others thing of this and any opinions.

I myself over time have seen that I don't feel good criticizing other exes or whatever they choose to believe. This means that even though I am not using terms or tech related to Scn, I know some exes do. At the start I didn't know anyone and said whatever was on my mind.

This caused some good responses but also caused two types of less great reactions. First, I guess my style did not go over, even with those here who like me do not use the tech at all for any reason and would rather forget the terminology. I have yet to really befriend anyone who shares that trait with me, unless I am unaware that someone who I have responded to feels the same. If anything, some who feel that way have had a pretty negative reaction to me.

The above 3 paragraphs are critical. I will talk about them below in the main body of my reply.

Second are those who use Scn tech in FZ or Indie, which I assume includes you, CO2, Hats, Terril and others. All of those folks have been cordial and I've enjoyed the exchange with them here. Since they are the ones I've befriended then I feel less than inclined to criticize their beliefs in Scientology tech....even though I don't share that belief. And while I would love to talk to anyone about why some specific piece of the tech doesn't work for me, I would only want to do it in a non-attacking way, for mutual understanding.

Actually, Maria, I don't use Scn tech in the FZ myself. I did in just a little in 2011 and 2012 but lost interest. I'm not a FZ fan, I'm neutral on the FZ. I'll elaborate below.

Third, there is only so much energy I can expend on the entire topic of Scn. I posted some things and surprisingly the only real feedback came from those I mentioned in the second point above. Isn't it weird that those who were kind and who even argued fairly with me (and against my logic) were not the ones supposedly fully out and who have given up on all the tech the way I have?

This is an important point as I see it and has to do with Tolerance and the granting of Validity by certain people to people with Points of View different than their own. More below:

Finally, I can't be the one responsible to keep any thread alive including this one. I will post when I have something to post or if someone responds to my post. I also lurk a lot and check for pms which I do occasionally get.

If the thread dies, it dies. I don't think it should live artificially on life support. If it lives on its own, then that is great. I really enjoy the thread and all the posters here. Keep in mind that it is the summer and people actually go outside, take vacations, etc. It's likely that posters have an analog life too.

Well stated!! I share your views 100%. No one, myself included, has ever posted solely to just keep the thread alive!

Because I am more a techie I was never really AS interested in the CoS topic and always was more interested in the tech end of things. If you look at my posts they are about the tech and less about CoS. It's just what I am interested in. If what interests me is not politically correct there is not much I can do about that.

That did not stand out as being obvious but it was there to be seen. Your blogs all concern tech and I don't recall you criticizing any admin except possibly the big weekly push for stats!

I don't agree with any of the tech, not one single term or concept. And I do enjoy understanding and talking about why. BUT I can't do it by myself as if I was talking to a wall. It's only interesting when in conversation with others. Unfortunately I doubt that those who believe in the tech are all that enthused to understand the problems I see, most anywhere I look, whenever I look at the 'tech' (which as you know I don't consider to be 'tech' at all. Sigh. So therefore other than sex, lies and videotape (wasn't that the movie) what is there to talk about?

The Dilemma of Criticizing Exes What a pure joy ESMB would be if people just discussed topics and no one ever criticized any one else. Sadly, IMHO, everyone soon finds out upon reading here that that is not the case! Everyone is going to receive personal criticism sooner or later on ESMB. THE QUESTION IS NOT HOW TO AVOID IT BUT HOW TO HANDLE IT!

Some fight back, some ignore it, some try to make logical arguments to change people's minds. I tended to attempt the logical argument path but if that failed and the other party continued his criticism and would not agree to disagree then I fought back. When a person fights back, it is usually ugly. A lot of very negative energy is stirred up, tensions and stress often build up. Fighting back is very taxing, it makes enemies.

Maria, I think the way you handle this problem is one of the best ways I have seen. You don't fight. you aren't heavy handed but you get your points across without ending up looking like a wimp, even though you don't fight. I don't know how you feel on the inside but just watching you in actioin, I felt that there was something there to be learned from your approach. When an argument arises, it seems to be best to be lighthearted and use a little humor. Those seem to be the keys to avoiding a big brouhaha!

Prior to your arriving here, I thought that anyone who did not agree with any of the tech was blind to a certain extent, not visually of course but spiritually. I remember talking this over with Purple Haze on several occasions. TR2 helped me; without learning Tr2, my life would have been hell. I observed that if a person was having an upset or problem, just by listening to them intently and giving an acknowledgment to them every now and then, that seemed to help the person feel better about their problems.

When you came along, you were asserting, and are still asserting, that every shred of tech is crap. I brought up TR 2 to you and your answer was that that knowledge was available elsewhere, at a lower price and without signing away your life. Okay, fair enough, we were able to move beyond that point.

Still, you are the first person I know who believes that every scrap of Hubbard's tech is garbage whom I can agree with enough to have a major discussion with on any topic. What I think is the difference is that you have more OTHER knowledge behind you than me and most, if not all, of those on ESMB. You can fall back on things which none of us have ever learned. I did quite a bit of reading for about 20 years and then stopped. I had a Bachelor's degree in Math and then stopped. Even so, I am better educated than most exes. A few others on ESMB have a lot of knowledge as well but they use it by being pompous and dictatorial. You, though having a lot of education which we have not been exposed to, tend to be modest and since you are also kindhearted, you make no effort to force your opinions down our throats.

That's my analysis of what is different between you and other people on ESMB who believe that all Hubbard's tech was crap. You are basing your beliefs on superior knowledge gained through reading and especially through your studies of philosophy. Many others arrive at the same conclusions as you do regarding tech but they arrive there mainly for emotional reasons, maybe having some relative die while in CoS, for example

All that many of us know about certain subjects is what we learned from Hubbard. We give him credit, even if he stole it from another source. You usually know where the knowledge originally came from in the first place and you know that Hubbard had nothing to do with it. That, I believe, is the difference between us. We definitely apply things which we think were created by Hubbard and get a positive result most of the time We give Hubbard the credit even though he may not deserve it.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Dear M. I'm not going to get into a quasi-philosophical discussion with you because I don't have the intellectual ammunition or the inclination. Personally I don't believe in 'The Creator', so we part company on that score alone. If there is a maker and all of us are destined to meet him at some time or another, well, then I'll know. Until then I'll remain agnostic. I say agnostic because there is still so much we have to learn about the universe.

You have a perfect right to believe whatever you want as long as what you do on account of your faith is not to the detriment of others. I'm certainly not going to get angry with you.

Just out of curiosity, how do you account for the existence of the Universe if there is no creator? Do you apply the Western University approach, the Big Bang theory. or any particular alternate spiritual theory? Is it enough for an agnostic to just not know or do most of you hold to some sort of theory? I'm just really interested in this topic?
Lakey

 

[strativarius]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Just out of curiosity, [highlight]how do you account for the existence of the Universe[/highlight] if there is no creator? Do you apply the Western University approach, the Big Bang theory. or any particular alternate spiritual theory? Is it enough for an agnostic to just not know or do most of you hold to some sort of theory? I'm just really interested in this topic?
Lakey

Give me a break Lakey, the finest minds, with the benefit of standing on the shoulders (so to speak) of the finest minds that have gone before them cannot answer your question at present, so asking me is obviously futile.

So let me ask you. How did your 'Creator' manage to create the trillions upon trillions of stars, planets, black holes, quasars, humans, trees, rivers and seas and all the rest of it? In six days, no less. How? He just snapped his fingers or what?

I don't claim to speak for any other agnostics other than myself. I don't know, so I am keeping that thing that Hubbard abhorred so vehemently. An 'open mind'.