What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Mmmm. Now that's good bass!" Jane Curtain, Dan Akryod's SNL Bassomatic Skit

If I recall correctly, the BAS was selected, compiled, clarified, expanded and “assisted” by Shaffy—Cl XII Ron Shaffron (Sp?) with Julie Mayo Gillespie (Sp?) as Shaffy’s assistant.

I was Audited by both of them…real smooth…real good…real “there”...both could “think” with the materials.:yes:

Face:)

PS: (Sp?) double entendre intended. F you El Ron:angry:and may the Blessings of The Universe be Upon the Horses you rode on. :heartflower:
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Data - a Scientology word?

Times like this I feel I have to revert to the scientology think tank just so I might have a mutual reference. I don't like doing that but if it serves to communicate then that's what I do. No, I don't like the word "data" and some other oft used scio phrases that the users don't seem to understand but just parrot to any set of ears that will listen.

I had no idea you considered "data" a Scio word. I would guess that it is used in and out of Scientology about equally.

"It works!"

WTF do those neo-scios mean by that?

It gets the result they claim it gets. That would be my guess.

As for auditor class, I am a class nothing. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

I wasn't talking about auditor classification. I was just joking that you and MAB were taking the same class which taught how to pontificate using one liners.

I am an interned BC graduate and Dianetic auditor with thousands of WD and VWD auditing hours under my belt. My experience. My knowledge. No one can take that away.

As a Class V auditor you should be aware of the Basic Auditing Series. This is perhaps one of the most brilliant things that Hubbard ever came up with. My little bit of commenting in an earlier post was taken directly from that series. The auditors here will recognize it as nothing new.

Your earlier comments signal to me that you do not sufficiently understand fundamentals of auditing. I think the massage technique you have is all well and fine. If you can't "blow BT's" by your simply being there with the client then you have no business attempting to reach into another person's space, without their knowledge or approval, to blow BT's for them. I would predict that some day that client will be having to audit you as a BT out of their space.

Where did you get the concept that I would attempt to reach into another person's space without their knowledge? That has never been the case. I hatted the first person I did it on, Edey, on what I could do and gave her the option of doing it or not. She begged me to do it and afterwards told several of her friends and then they all demanded that I do it on them. Whenever I do it on a new person, I always go over the fundamentals with them and then only do it if they insist.

"Thanks for telling me and the board that it disgusts you."

I told the board that I am comfortable with the word data. The above sentence was me just me acknowleging what you said.

You would do well in promoting further communication by keeping a lid on your snide comments.


I will seriously consider doing that and would appreciate it if you would indicate to me which comments were snide.

On the point of running NOTS commands without letting my clients know what I am going to do or giving them a choice in the matter, you made an assumption there which was incorrect. I never described doing that nor would I ever consider doing such a thing and yet you got the impression that I did it routinely. I would implore you to not look before you leap on assuming that I would do such unsundry and unethical things.
Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Wouldnt dream of waking dear father Hubbard!

I think that if you look at the techniques used and its supposed effect, blow would refer to the entity leaving after it has a cognition, thus of its own determinism. I think that blow really describes the feeling of them leaving rather than what should be the intent of the auditor. It may have been a bad choice of words on Hubbard part, given the conversation we are having about it.

But blow does describe the sensation of having your attached PC suddenly cogniting and its attention going free, free of you and free to be elsewhere.

I shudder to think of the ill effect a person would encounter if they spent 10 years trying to force BT's off of them. Probably give them cancer or something. :ohmy:

IMO of course.

This is exactly what I always thought to be true back when I was in C of S and I still feel exactly the same today. You express the concepts very nicely! It is really nice to have you posting on this thread.
Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Super post Roger!

lakey, Mate,

I'm a bit surprised at your curt and testy response to Ted.

He was actually being gentle and jocular in his posts in dialogue with you.

With the training courses and case level actions you've done, you actually do have the "data," but as Ted pointed out "data isn't where it is at."

Where it's at, is getting it all aligned and really fully comprehended and applied at the highest levels of existence where the greatest level of truth is.

You can give the exact same piece of "data" to a dozen individuals and you can likely get a dozen different understandings of what it means and how it will be applied. Hell, what do you think it is you are seeing as the why of so much conflict on ESMB . . . . same fuggin "data" . . . but different comprehensions and applications.

Ted, indicated that it is when one is at the top of the "Tone Scale" that one gets the right answers. 'Tis true. Have a look at how you own understandings of truth upgrade as you have risen in mood/tone on various subjects and areas of your life.

I was reading your last posts, and giggling as I read your retort on the issue of "doing to versus doing for."

Maybe I might make a pun here and posit that Lakey's method of "doing for" is by way of "doing to" :D I recommend you might see what I'm getting at if you read your several recent posts.

The real job of an "auditor" or practitioner in this business is to simply ask a question of the client that the client understands and can answer, and to step back and let the client fully answer it. That's it. Of course, you ack the answer when you get and understand the answer.

The trick is you let the client do it . . . . you are not the cause of his/her gain :no: they are. It is their power and Life-Force you are freeing and facilitating for them to empower. Your job is to simply ask clever questions or make very high "toned" high mood level contact such that they benefit from an empowering connection. It's that simple.

Here is an example of "think about" that is also an example of how folks can get into strife by intellectualizing, thinking about and otherwise ruminating on all this stuff instead of actually doing the processes, and/or doing the drills, clay table demos or whatever.

Note ACTION is high on the Tone/mood scale. "Thinking" and ruminating is way low.

Lakey, here's the example. If you did or do what you wrote in this piece of yours below, you would end up with a major balls up. Look at what you are actually saying:



It's from your post # 10139.

In other words, this is suggesting in the part highlighted in red, that you're rationalizing actually getting rid of a part of yourself!

I could go through several of your missives picking up little funnies like this. But that's no fun for anyone.

Of course, we've seen an immense amount of this kind of rationalizing here on ESMB . . . . Vin is famous for asserting that "thetans are really only 'thoughts,'" not actual live, true Beings. Not I wrote the words "thetans" there, not BTs.

Lakey, there is no substitute for doing the work and actions necessary to experientially understand and gain a fully aligned comprehension of "the data" one studies such that one can fully apply it at the highest level of truth in life.

Theoretical rumination can be entertaining . . . . and pushing around "data" is all that is. But action is where one gets and sees the truth of things.

Rog

This is a great post Roger!! Maybe I should call you Roger the peacemaker. I really appreciate the time and the high ARC you put in on this plus giving a specific example, etc., etc., etc.

I actually love to be corrected and that is one major way that I improve and expand as a being.

One thing though, on the example you gave as to where and how I am going wrong, I do not really get your point. When I indicate a being getting rid of part of himself I am likening it to someone running out an incident on Dianetics where someone as-ises an engram and it blows. I guess the intention units of the being which were trapped in the engram get refiled in the person's analytical banks and to that degree the person gets bigger. This is the type of "getting rid of which I was refering to" Maybe I should use the term redistributing trapped theta or entheta back into free theta.

On the thing with Ted, I did not think that I was real testy and terse. I tried to be polite and express my differences with him with respect and humor. I got to the point on the Apollo thread where I am getting attacked a lot, especially by MAB and I just made a decission to stand my ground and fight back. Ted has been a top poster here for months and has, at times, driven this thread. I think there is a serious rift between us now. I don't have anything against him but I am saying and doing things he does not like.

I am going to continue defending my positions forcefully but with respect. I just look at the print on the computer screen as a bunch of electrons whirling around. I can write anything I want and nobody is going to reach through the computer screen and choke me.

Thank you again, Rog, for your extremely understanding and upbeat post. I am taking everything you said to heart and hopefully you will notice some positive changes in my posts.
Lakey
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Y'all, please raise your glasses...I'd like to propose a toast.

Lakey my friend, step outside, take a deep breath and have a glass of wine.

You started the Apollo Thread but you are not “The Apollo Thread” and it is no longer solely yours…I know you know that.

Around 17 years ago, I came up with an idea—a concept—to create and build a business that was an unique and original concept for a Mature Industry.

A couple of very wealthy folks (far, far more wealthier than I) and a couple of folks much, much smarter than I (Post Doc smart) thought it was one helluva a concept, but, it would take huge front-loaded risk, near lunatic devotion, 10-12 years to reach "Critical Mass" and some old fashioned luck along the way. A little over 5 years ago, The Universe smiled down upon me and blessed me with a Hemorrhagic Lesion and Mass in my brain and I had to let go of it. Like to broke my heart at the time.

Scores and scores of people buy and enjoy the ultimate fruits of my labors, my passion, my considerable risk taken and hard, hard work every day and they don’t have a clue who I am or anything about me. That don't matter to me—anymore; it was the fullfillment of a Life's Dream.

But, I have my memories of the wonderful times, the thrill of the fire in my belly glowing, growing and—with huge, brilliant and beyond my personal limitations contributions from host’s of others, “Big” and “Small” and, frankly, never woulda happened without them—lighting a niche pathway in that Industry that lives on, and will live on, long after I saddle-up for the next go ‘round.

To our Yiddisherkop Host and his Compadre and Comadre…here’s to mudd in your eye.:cheers: (Clink)

Let ‘er buck! :happydance:

Face:)

PS: The only good thing about having your Ox goard is realizing that you at least have an Ox that is alive enough to bleed and worth being gone after.
 
Last edited:

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is a great post Roger!! Maybe I should call you Roger the peacemaker. I really appreciate the time and the high ARC you put in on this plus giving a specific example, etc., etc., etc.

I actually love to be corrected and that is one major way that I improve and expand as a being.

One thing though, on the example you gave as to where and how I am going wrong, I do not really get your point. When I indicate a being getting rid of part of himself I am likening it to someone running out an incident on Dianetics where someone as-ises an engram and it blows. I guess the intention units of the being which were trapped in the engram get refiled in the person's analytical banks and to that degree the person gets bigger. This is the type of "getting rid of which I was refering to" Maybe I should use the term redistributing trapped theta or entheta back into free theta.

On the thing with Ted, I did not think that I was real testy and terse. I tried to be polite and express my differences with him with respect and humor. I got to the point on the Apollo thread where I am getting attacked a lot, especially by MAB and I just made a decission to stand my ground and fight back. Ted has been a top poster here for months and has, at times, driven this thread. I think there is a serious rift between us now. I don't have anything against him but I am saying and doing things he does not like.

I am going to continue defending my positions forcefully but with respect. I just look at the print on the computer screen as a bunch of electrons whirling around. I can write anything I want and nobody is going to reach through the computer screen and choke me.

Thank you again, Rog, for your extremely understanding and upbeat post. I am taking everything you said to heart and hopefully you will notice some positive changes in my posts.
Lakey



Lakey, you think to much.

And you are way too Lakey-centric.

You wrote: "I had no idea you considered 'data' a Scio word. I would guess that it is used in and out of Scientology about equally."

And you have a habit of twisting a communication to alter its intent and meaning.

Data is an English word. Scientologists overuse it and give it a value far beyond usefulness.

I guess it makes some people sound like they know something, or have some specialized knowledge, or an inside track with the Big Man.

I once had a client, a professional man, who was flatly amazed that an organization such as scientology could make money by pushing so much paper around. Yes, it is amazing. But when you have a horde of seniors demanding "the data on that," and when they issue orders and programs giving you "the data on that," and when you generate knowledge reports giving Dir. I&R the "data on that," and when you have to correct those reports with "the data on that," the whole idea of data takes on a surrealism that has nothing to do with selling books, training, processing, or peeps making a better life for themselves.

And that's why the idea of scientology data disgusts me.

And I am pretty good at granting beingness, but when someone repeatedly twists a communication to alter its intent and meaning I just find that beyond annoying.

:angry::angry::angry:
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Thanks for the positive and upbeat post!

Looks like it was more that the data is there and it can be studied
and looked at. You may never have studied it all, or forgotten some or
could do with more study. Remember both Ted and Carmelo have done the briefing course which is far more expansive than class V.



Have no idea if anything was meant personally. Can't keep up with everything on ESMB.

However there are many examples of doing something to a client as opposed to for a client. A few of the many examples:-

Give wrong indications whether as tech or admin people.

Sec checks. Can be for, but long history of to.

Wrong ethics conditions assigned.

Declare someone.

C/S for an imaginery case. This includes a possible multiplicity of sins.

Assign PTS conditions that are false.

Check for PTS conditions that are false.

Give non -enturbulation order.

Invalidate in the many numerous ways possible.

Evaluate in the numerous ways possible.

Heavy regging.

Note that in some of the above one may consider one is doing something for the PC but is in fact doing something to the PC.

Thanks Terril for the positive and upbeat post, I really appreciate it. In that list above, I do not see anything that I would admit doing.

Yes, those that have done the Briefing Course have done way more than I have done. Also, I have never done the Internship for 0 to IV which I really needed and wanted to do but at the time Golden Age was coming on line and the O.C. Org did not yet have packs for the interneship to be done Golden Age style and they told me to hold off on doing my Internship. Had I done the 0 to IV interneship, I would be a much better auditor than I am now as far as having mastered all the basics and being familiar with the techniques and processes.
Lakey
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Lakey, you think to much.

And you are way too Lakey-centric.

You wrote: "I had no idea you considered 'data' a Scio word. I would guess that it is used in and out of Scientology about equally."

And you have a habit of twisting a communication to alter its intent and meaning.

Data is an English word. Scientologists overuse it and give it a value far beyond usefulness.

I guess it makes some people sound like they know something, or have some specialized knowledge, or an inside track with the Big Man.

I once had a client, a professional man, who was flatly amazed that an organization such as scientology could make money by pushing so much paper around. Yes, it is amazing. But when you have a horde of seniors demanding "the data on that," and when they issue orders and programs giving you "the data on that," and when you generate knowledge reports giving Dir. I&R the "data on that," and when you have to correct those reports with "the data on that," the whole idea of data takes on a surrealism that has nothing to do with selling books, training, processing, or peeps making a better life for themselves.

And that's why the idea of scientology data disgusts me.

And I am pretty good at granting beingness, but when someone repeatedly twists a communication to alter its intent and meaning I just find that beyond annoying.

:angry::angry::angry:

Data is in theory a neutral concept.

In CO$ it was corrupted.

However, opening myself for attack, I loved data series.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Let's just agree to disagree

Lakey, you think to much.

And you are way too Lakey-centric.

You wrote: "I had no idea you considered 'data' a Scio word. I would guess that it is used in and out of Scientology about equally."

And you have a habit of twisting a communication to alter its intent and meaning.

Data is an English word. Scientologists overuse it and give it a value far beyond usefulness.

I guess it makes some people sound like they know something, or have some specialized knowledge, or an inside track with the Big Man.

I once had a client, a professional man, who was flatly amazed that an organization such as scientology could make money by pushing so much paper around. Yes, it is amazing. But when you have a horde of seniors demanding "the data on that," and when they issue orders and programs giving you "the data on that," and when you generate knowledge reports giving Dir. I&R the "data on that," and when you have to correct those reports with "the data on that," the whole idea of data takes on a surrealism that has nothing to do with selling books, training, processing, or peeps making a better life for themselves.

And that's why the idea of scientology data disgusts me.

And I am pretty good at granting beingness, but when someone repeatedly twists a communication to alter its intent and meaning I just find that beyond annoying.

:angry::angry::angry:

I am happy being who I am and doing what I am now doing. I respect you greatly, you are very wisened and appear to be a real nice guy. Your posts on this thread are generally outstanding or higher.

You and I do not see things the same. It is okay. I am a bit odd, I know that. The thing is that on some topics, I have a different way of expressing myself than you do. The best way to get me to change my ways is to communicate with a lot of affinity and in a light tone. Roger and Terril just wrote me two such posts.

The type of posts you are making to me just do not resonate with me. Its no big deal. We don't see eye to eye right now but my respect for you and your points of view is as high as ever. I don't see a problem with this state of affairs. A successful message board forum flourishes when people have views which are different.

If you feel that some of my ideas are downright dangerous, I would appreciate if you would clue me in with high affinity. I like specific examples of where I am going off the rails, the mentioning of specific incidents, etc. If you just declare that something is wrong and I don't know what you are talking about, I am going to be annoyed and there is no chance that I will change.

I don't know how important this is to you, probably not that important but anyway I am very willing to change if valid reasons are presented to me to do so in a positive way.

Lakey
 
Last edited:

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Data is in theory a neutral concept.

In CO$ it was corrupted.

However, opening myself for attack, I loved data series.

I liked the Data Series, too and still use some of it "my way".

But, guess what folks, it didn't all come from El Ron...not by a long shot...and it didn't all come from Scns. And, there's a few things about it that will sure enough F things up royally unless you know where the holes, loops and the booby traps are. Thankfully, it is currently one of El Ron's "Breakthroughs" that is a "Biggie" in sending Institutionalized Scn to Hell in a Handbasket.:yes:

Someday, not anytime soon, I may post my "Take" on the Data Series. :melodramatic::grouch:

Face:)
 
Last edited:

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Mission Impossible?

I am happy being who I am and doing what I am now doing. I respect you greatly, you are very wisened and appear to be a real nice guy. Your posts on this thread are generally outstanding or higher.

You and I do not see things the same. It is okay. I am a bit odd, I know that. The thing is that on some topics, I have a different way of expressing myself than you do. The best way to get me to change my ways is to communicate with a lot of affinity and in a light tone. Robert and Terril just wrote me too such posts.

The type of posts you are making to me just do not resonate with me. Its no big deal. We don't see eye to eye right now but my respect for you and your points of view is as high as ever. I don't see a problem with this state of affairs. A successful message board forum flourishes when people have views which are different.

If you feel that some of my ideas are downright dangerous, I would appreciate if you would clue me in with high affinity. I like specific examples of where I am going off the rails, the mentioning of specific incidents, etc. If you just declare that something is wrong and I don't know what you are talking about, I am going to be annoyed and there is no chance that I will change.

I don't know how important this is to you, probably not that important but anyway I am very willing to change if valid reasons are presented to me to do so in a positive way.

Lakey

:omg::omg::omg:

Good, clean communication is important to me. I do not care if YOU change or not. I am not trying to change YOU. I am trying to obtain a decent comm cycle. Perhaps this expectation is much too much.

Could you just do a TR-2 without an alter-is, without explaining or justifying or drawing attention to yourself?

I feel my recent posts have been very simple and clear.

I am not going to run a training course over the internet.

How's about just a TR-2 from Lakey. Huh? :confused2:
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
I liked the Data Series, too and still use some of it "my way".

But, guess what folks, it didn't all come from El Ron...not by a long shot...and it didn't all come from Scns. And, there's a few things about it that will sure enough F things up royally unless you know where the holes, loops and the booby traps are. Thankfully, it is currently one of El Ron's "Breakthroughs" that is a "Biggie" in sending Institutionalized Scn to Hell in a Handbasket.:yes:

Someday, not anytime some, I may post my "Take" on the Data Series. :melodramatic::grouch:

Face:)


For starters there has to be a WHO.

And, the WHO cannot be LRH.

Unless it's a plus-point eval. Then LRH is the WHO. But plus-point evals are almost never done.

Unless the WHO is LRH.

:thumbsup:
 
Lakey my friend, step outside, take a deep breath and have a glass of wine.

You started the Apollo Thread but you are not “The Apollo Thread” and it is no longer solely yours…I know you know that.

Around 17 years ago, I came up with an idea—a concept—to create and build a business that was an unique and original concept for a Mature Industry.

A couple of very wealthy folks (far, far more wealthier than I) and a couple of folks much, much smarter than I (Post Doc smart) thought it was one helluva a concept, but, it would take huge front-loaded risk, near lunatic devotion, 10-12 years to reach "Critical Mass" and some old fashioned luck along the way. A little over 5 years ago, The Universe smiled down upon me and blessed me with a Hemorrhagic Lesion and Mass in my brain and I had to let go of it. Like to broke my heart.

Scores and scores of people buy and enjoy the ultimate fruits of my labors, my passion, my considerable risk taken and hard, hard work every day and they don’t have a clue who I am or anything about me. That don't matter to me—anymore; it was the fullfillment of a Life's Dream.

But, I have my memories of the wonderful times, the thrill of the fire in my belly glowing, growing and—with huge, brilliant and beyond my personal limitations contributions from host’s of others, “Big” and “Small” and, frankly, never woulda happened without them—lighting a niche pathway in that Industry that lives on, and will live on, long after I saddle-up for the next go ‘round.

To our Yiddisherkop Host and his Compadre and Comadre…here’s to mudd in your eye.:cheers: (Clink)

Let ‘er buck! :happydance:

Face:)

PS: The only good thing about having your Ox goard is realizing that you at least have an Ox that is alive enough to bleed and worth being gone after.
I'm going to let the cat out of the bag. Face invented fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulG_ReckFPs&feature=related
 

FoTi

Crusader
The closest I know to one is Aida Thomas. I know of no LRH policy, either iin management or in tech that she disagrees with and she admits that she is an LRH loyalist but not a blind LRH loyalist. Their are traits of LRH and actions he has taken which she does not agree with but I don't know of any LRH tech that she disagrees with. There is a possibility that Janice Grady and Blue Spirit who both have posted here in the past but are not currently posting also fall into this category. Of all the thousands of ESMB members, I only know a few hundred of them so there be many more in this category but I do not know. Neither do you nor Mark Baker know that they do not exist.

The whole issue is a moot point because it was mentioned briefly in passing solely to gain further understanding from Free Being about one of his posts. My usage of this loyalist class was successful in illiciting a response from Free Being and that is all it was intended for.

I have put in a lot of time explaining why I made the comment I did. By doing what I did, Free Being clarified his position on ESMB very clearly and explained exactly why he feels the way he does. That is why I wrote what I wrote and it achieved its desired result. That is the big picture. If you or Mark Baker want to quibble about a trivial side issue, I have already shown that my remark that there were some people on ESMB who were loyalists was not completely off the wall. Diana Class VIII has admitted in her recent post that she is an LRH loyalist though not a blind one. That shows that there is at least one LRH loyalist currently posting on "the board".

Of course Mark Baker or you, Terrill, would never have the balls to take on Diana Class VIII directly and tell her that she is not a loyalist so you prefer to attack me.

I am closing out this issue and will say no more about it. I made my point and proved that my claim was not bogus plus I got the answer I wanted to know from Free Being.

I am the host of the Apollo 1973 thread, by far the largest and most successful thread ever to appear on ESMB. I was an obscure member of CCLA treasury and failed on the Apollo after only 2 months there. When I arrived here only a handful of people had ever heard of me and yet my thread has 263,500 views when we passed 10,000 views on December 3, 2009 only 14 months ago. That is over a quarter of a million hits in only 14 months.

I know how to run a thread and it is based on telling the truth as best as one can, maintaining personal integrity and granting couresty and beingness to opposing viewpoints. I don't need to prove myself to Mark A. Baker or people of his ilk. The top people in any endeavor are often attacked by people with lower achievment in their field and so it is with me in the area of thread creation and hosting. With Mark and Terril, I have said all I can say about this freezone loyalist dispute and we have reached the point where we will have to agree to disagree.

I respect both their views, Terril's more so than Mark's but I do respect Mark's views. He has written some very good posts recently which I have complimented him on and he is very well informed on the history of the Roman Empire, especially relating to the early Christian period.

I am not going to respond to anymore posts on the LRH loyalist issue.
Lakey

Lakey, how can someone who sometimes uses other tech be a loyalist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top