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

[MattD]

snip



If you want to PR Scientology to yourself, and that makes you feel better, then go right ahead. Maybe you can start a club.

This is ad hom. You have diverted the subject to me with negative accusations rather than adding something substantiative to the discussion. I find that this is usually a sign that the person doing this has nothing substantiative to say and is just trying to make themselves look important. I consider it bad manners, and in light of the recent kurfuffle on this board about manners, you might consider its advisability.

Your attempt at trolling has failed.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Ad hom ... lol!

 

[FoTi]

I'm a class nothing also. If you bought into the class Vl, Vll, X, Xll status thing, you also bought into a smaller box, where thinking and acting and writing worksheets and ARFs (auditor report forms) and videos etc made you a perfect R2D2. Not for me , thanks. I do book one expanded.

How do you do Book I expanded?

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

How do you do Book I expanded?

First, I was semi kidding. I do know and use a lot of processes from Scientology, Jack Horner, John Mace, Alan Walter, and my own.

Second, book One, DMSMH has almost all the basics contained within it. I do use incident running, repeater technique, "the file clerk" -- really spiritual teammates, auditing a person on what they are sitting in, running to a "win"

those are all essentials.

with Book One, I can take a PC before time. Here is a smidge of a success story:

I've got to say it. I have come to the conclusion that when folks
start talking about incidents "before time" or auditing future incidents, I
realize these people have not consciously encountered the vastness of
experience outside of time. Hell, I've experienced it and I keep
forgetting. Time is one of the barriers that helps to create the game -
that's all. And, we create time.

Here is another write up by someone after a session:

Prime Axioms: A Modern View of the 'Gunas' Principle

One of the greatest and most important discoveries
in the history of philosophy was the revelation
of the 'gunas-principle' in Ancient India.

Unfortunately, it is now one of the most ignored
and underestimated principles.

It comes therefore as quite a surprise that 'modern'
philosophers (not from the institutionalized
mainstream, mind you!) have discovered this principle
anew and they did so rather indepedently.

While the Indian approach appeared to be isolating
the core elements of the character of a human
Being through intense and prolonged meditation,
the modern Western approach arrived at it mainly
by looking at the sequence of lives of Beings and
through theoretical speculation.

Drawing a chart of the life sequence of a Being
results in a table that is called a line plot.

One of the most striking properties of such a
line plot is the alternation of the 'main'
(or 'central') valences of a person from one lifetime
to the next.

Frequent paradigm sets are beggar/millionaire,
saint/criminal, genius/imbecile, adventurer/couch potato,
traditionalist/revolutionary etc, etc. and the
individual sets remain surprisingly similar over
incredible long time periods.

Yet there are also different for every human Being.

The question arises: is there a basic set of
qualities with which these core paradigms align?

And, if so, is there a way to access these
core paradigms within a reasonable time and
using reasonable effort?

Once found and understood, what impact will it
have on the future course of lives of a Being?

The Indian approach was to find the common
denominator in the extremes of an individual
set of paradigms.

One component, called 'ragas', was the outgoing,
'positive', bright, and conquering side.

The other component, called 'tamas' was the
introverted, 'negative', dark, and defeated side.

Both are gaining their power through the spark
of pure intention, called 'sattva'.

This triad of qualities, the 'gunas', was said
to be the principal construct determining the
individual human character.

Its discovery through isolation of the core
qualities within the jungle of human emotions
and behavior patterns was therefore of crucial
importance and a focal point in ancient meditation
techniques.

While the circumstance that every Being has
its very own set of core qualities was largely
lost over time, the basic philosophy of the
'gunas' is still present in today's time.

As mentioned above, 'modern' approaches are going
a radically different way and three main
approaches are visible:

- drawing a chart of past lives until a clear
pattern emerges and the person recognizes the
two most basic valences as their own set of
prime motivations;

- tracing back goals/problems/(mental masses)
("GPM's") to their origin, yielding the basic
goal of a person.

- assessing the person's core valences using
a biofeedback device until the pattern
cristallizes;

- finding the actual moment of creation (or
first contact) with the two core qualities
that constitute the basic pair of axioms
for an individual (pioneered by CarmeloOrchards).

It is immediately apparent that the last approach
is preferable because it avoids the inteference
of human language or other conceptual crutches
by accessing the core qualities directly as
perceptions rather than abstractions.

The likelihood of words altering the perception of
the core qualities is considerable. The danger
in doing so is the incorrect selection of an
item from a list of choices.

This phenomenon, sometimes called a 'wrong list
item', can create havoc of major proportions,
and it is the main reason that asking the "why...?"
is a big no-no in any kind of processing.

The exact mechanism of this killer trap has
never been explained exhaustively. Yet, it is
claiming a lot of victims.

Now, what would be the advantages of finding
one's prime motivators in life?

The individual qualities (or 'Codes' in
Knowledgism http://www.knowledgism.com/ ) have
determined the course of one's lives since
aeons.

And more often than not in a negative way:

the qualities can also be described as
the 'most basic desire' and the 'most
vehement rejection' in the character profile
of a person.

Any course of action that is not aligned
with the central goal/anti-goal of a person
will inevitably lead to a decrease of happiness
and success.

A person not following its own basic axioms
will become the worst enemy of itself.

The individual discovery and recognition of
a person's 'gunas' or 'prime motivator'
or 'goal/anti goal' can lead to an alignment
of the person's current and future goals,
dramatically increasing effectiveness and
success rate.

With practice, other people's goal/anti-goal
constructs can be recognized. Just as one
example out of many, Dennis Stephens in his
work 'The Resolution of Mind (TROM)' traces
his goal constructs ('GPMs') back to 'knowing'
and then postulates that 'knowing' is the
basic goal in this Universe.

With the knowledge of the 'gunas' or 'prime
motivators' is becomes immediately clear that
Stephens simply transposed his very own basic goal
('knowing') onto the rest of mankind. (His approach
is still feasible for many people as long as
'knowing' will be replaced by a person's own
prime goal.)

It seems, the application of the gunas in life
seems far more important than the act of discovery
or the theoretical knowledge of its contents.

>From a larger view, the lives of a Being in this
Universe are centered around the two poles
of its principal goal and its principal
anti-goal.

Thus, it seems only a matter of time spent on
the path to self-discovery and liberation until
the most basic goals in life will have to be
recognized as such.

 

[Leon]

Lakey, how can someone who sometimes uses other tech be a loyalist?

It's quite simple really. One has to recognise that the subject of Scientology extends way beyond what LRH ever wrote or spoke about.

 

[FoTi]

First, I was semi kidding. I do know and use a lot of processes from Scientology, Jack Horner, John Mace, Alan Walter, and my own.

Second, book One, DMSMH has almost all the basics contained within it. I do use incident running, repeater technique, "the file clerk" -- really spiritual teammates, auditing a person on what they are sitting in, running to a "win"

those are all essentials.

with Book One, I can take a PC before time. Here is a smidge of a success story:

I've got to say it. I have come to the conclusion that when folks
start talking about incidents "before time" or auditing future incidents, I
realize these people have not consciously encountered the vastness of
experience outside of time. Hell, I've experienced it and I keep
forgetting. Time is one of the barriers that helps to create the game -
that's all. And, we create time.

Here is another write up by someone after a session:

Prime Axioms: A Modern View of the 'Gunas' Principle

One of the greatest and most important discoveries
in the history of philosophy was the revelation
of the 'gunas-principle' in Ancient India.

Unfortunately, it is now one of the most ignored
and underestimated principles.

It comes therefore as quite a surprise that 'modern'
philosophers (not from the institutionalized
mainstream, mind you!) have discovered this principle
anew and they did so rather indepedently.

While the Indian approach appeared to be isolating
the core elements of the character of a human
Being through intense and prolonged meditation,
the modern Western approach arrived at it mainly
by looking at the sequence of lives of Beings and
through theoretical speculation.

Drawing a chart of the life sequence of a Being
results in a table that is called a line plot.

One of the most striking properties of such a
line plot is the alternation of the 'main'
(or 'central') valences of a person from one lifetime
to the next.

Frequent paradigm sets are beggar/millionaire,
saint/criminal, genius/imbecile, adventurer/couch potato,
traditionalist/revolutionary etc, etc. and the
individual sets remain surprisingly similar over
incredible long time periods.

Yet there are also different for every human Being.

The question arises: is there a basic set of
qualities with which these core paradigms align?

And, if so, is there a way to access these
core paradigms within a reasonable time and
using reasonable effort?

Once found and understood, what impact will it
have on the future course of lives of a Being?

The Indian approach was to find the common
denominator in the extremes of an individual
set of paradigms.

One component, called 'ragas', was the outgoing,
'positive', bright, and conquering side.

The other component, called 'tamas' was the
introverted, 'negative', dark, and defeated side.

Both are gaining their power through the spark
of pure intention, called 'sattva'.

This triad of qualities, the 'gunas', was said
to be the principal construct determining the
individual human character.

Its discovery through isolation of the core
qualities within the jungle of human emotions
and behavior patterns was therefore of crucial
importance and a focal point in ancient meditation
techniques.

While the circumstance that every Being has
its very own set of core qualities was largely
lost over time, the basic philosophy of the
'gunas' is still present in today's time.

As mentioned above, 'modern' approaches are going
a radically different way and three main
approaches are visible:

- drawing a chart of past lives until a clear
pattern emerges and the person recognizes the
two most basic valences as their own set of
prime motivations;

- tracing back goals/problems/(mental masses)
("GPM's") to their origin, yielding the basic
goal of a person.

- assessing the person's core valences using
a biofeedback device until the pattern
cristallizes;

- finding the actual moment of creation (or
first contact) with the two core qualities
that constitute the basic pair of axioms
for an individual (pioneered by CarmeloOrchards).

It is immediately apparent that the last approach
is preferable because it avoids the inteference
of human language or other conceptual crutches
by accessing the core qualities directly as
perceptions rather than abstractions.

The likelihood of words altering the perception of
the core qualities is considerable. The danger
in doing so is the incorrect selection of an
item from a list of choices.

This phenomenon, sometimes called a 'wrong list
item', can create havoc of major proportions,
and it is the main reason that asking the "why...?"
is a big no-no in any kind of processing.

The exact mechanism of this killer trap has
never been explained exhaustively. Yet, it is
claiming a lot of victims.

Now, what would be the advantages of finding
one's prime motivators in life?

The individual qualities (or 'Codes' in
Knowledgism http://www.knowledgism.com/ ) have
determined the course of one's lives since
aeons.

And more often than not in a negative way:

the qualities can also be described as
the 'most basic desire' and the 'most
vehement rejection' in the character profile
of a person.

Any course of action that is not aligned
with the central goal/anti-goal of a person
will inevitably lead to a decrease of happiness
and success.

A person not following its own basic axioms
will become the worst enemy of itself.

The individual discovery and recognition of
a person's 'gunas' or 'prime motivator'
or 'goal/anti goal' can lead to an alignment
of the person's current and future goals,
dramatically increasing effectiveness and
success rate.

With practice, other people's goal/anti-goal
constructs can be recognized. Just as one
example out of many, Dennis Stephens in his
work 'The Resolution of Mind (TROM)' traces
his goal constructs ('GPMs') back to 'knowing'
and then postulates that 'knowing' is the
basic goal in this Universe.

With the knowledge of the 'gunas' or 'prime
motivators' is becomes immediately clear that
Stephens simply transposed his very own basic goal
('knowing') onto the rest of mankind. (His approach
is still feasible for many people as long as
'knowing' will be replaced by a person's own
prime goal.)

It seems, the application of the gunas in life
seems far more important than the act of discovery
or the theoretical knowledge of its contents.

>From a larger view, the lives of a Being in this
Universe are centered around the two poles
of its principal goal and its principal
anti-goal.

Thus, it seems only a matter of time spent on
the path to self-discovery and liberation until
the most basic goals in life will have to be
recognized as such.

Thank you.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

It's quite simple really. One has to recognise that the subject of Scientology extends way beyond what LRH ever wrote or spoke about.

(Meanwhile back in the real world)...

 

[lkwdblds]

More of this stuff.

It's quite simple really. One has to recognise that the subject of Scientology extends way beyond what LRH ever wrote or spoke about.

I hope you read my opening post to Free Being that started this discussion. I never used the term loyalist. I simply said that some people on the board believe that Hubbard could do no wrong and they believe in and use all his policies, both tech or admin.

Mark Baker initially said there were no such Hubbard "loyalists" on the board and then challenged me to name even one.

To me the words Hubbard Loyalist simply signified someone who believes that Hubbard could do no wrong and believes in and uses all his policies and tech. I just figured that is what MAB meant by the term and I started using it. It turned out MAB had a much different meaning for it than what I was using. He was using it more to signify freezone members or extremely loyal freezone members. I am not sure what he meant but as I wrote earlier, I don't want to spend anymore of my time on this discussion.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

It's quite simple really. One has to recognise that the subject of Scientology extends way beyond what LRH ever wrote or spoke about.

I would think a loyalist in Scientology would be someone who is KSWing.....that would not include someone who is going beyond what LRH wrote or spoke about and trains on or uses 'other tech' along with LRH tech. If someone, even part of the time, uses anything other than LRH tech, they wouldn't exactly be loyal, would they?

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I would think a loyalist in Scientology would be someone who is KSWing.....that would not include someone who is going beyond what LRH wrote or spoke about and trains on or uses 'other tech' along with LRH tech. If someone, even part of the time, uses anything other than LRH tech, they wouldn't exactly be loyal, would they?

me too. the international freezone association, for example

 

[lkwdblds]

So thats how one should talk to Veda

This is ad hom. You have diverted the subject to me with negative accusations rather than adding something substantiative to the discussion. I find that this is usually a sign that the person doing this has nothing substantiative to say and is just trying to make themselves look important. I consider it bad manners, and in light of the recent kurfuffle on this board about manners, you might consider its advisability.

Your attempt at trolling has failed.

Matt, I need to take some lessons from you on how to communicate to Veda. You do a lot better job of it than I was ever able to do.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

I liked the Data Series Evaluator's Course too.

Data is in theory a neutral concept.

In CO$ it was corrupted.

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

I liked it, it shed light on spotting out points. There is also a lot of this type of training in Law Schools, probably also in Government Intelligence Agencies. When used sensibly, the Data Series could help one in developing his or her critical thinking skills.
Lakey

 

[Veda]

This is ad hom. You have diverted the subject to me with negative accusations rather than adding something substantiative to the discussion. I find that this is usually a sign that the person doing this has nothing substantiative to say and is just trying to make themselves look important. I consider it bad manners, and in light of the recent kurfuffle on this board about manners, you might consider its advisability.

Your attempt at trolling has failed.

Ad hom?

Was this recent post by you, to Mate, ad hom?

Simply Amazing. A former NOTs C/S turned 180 degrees to now shill for the implanters.

My brief communication to you began after you responded to comments by DartSmohen. DartSmohen is not posting at this time, or perhaps he would have responded himself. Another person, Alan Walter, is unable to respond. His response would have been interesting. (Note: Both DartSmohen and Alan were on the first Class 8 course in 1968. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=525022&postcount=31 )

Here's DartSmohen's post, and your response to it:

1) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=526594&postcount=10093

And here was my response to your response:

2) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=526609&postcount=10096

And a follow up post to another, with more info for purposes of clarification:

3) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=527088&postcount=10135

And here's your response to my first response:

4) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=527161&postcount=10151

And my final post to that:

5) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=527185&postcount=10159

It was after this that you sent me a PM. I acknowledged that PM, and responded further, briefly, and in a way that I believe was clear.

It may be that you have a misunderstanding re. PMs. They are not made public. They are private. I received and acknowledged your PM, yet you (In the top post), then, made it public. I'd post my PM response to you, but that would break the rule.

Since you may be confused, an since rules seems quite important to you, PMs, once made privately are not, then, made public. That's a rule. And now you know.

I've no further interest in communicating with you, at this time. Nor am I much interested in posting to this thread in the foreseeable future. So, I don't think you need to be too concerned.

 

[lkwdblds]

Okay, I'll try better TR 2

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:

Yours is not a light and high toned post but in the spirit of good clean communication, I'll work on improving my TR-2.

In the meantime, your sentence about not running a training course over the internet is adversarial and is a put down. How about you going easy on such remarks? They do not befit someone claiming to want to obtain a decent comm cycle.

If you continue with them and see nothing wrong with doing so, I would rather that we do not respond to one another's posts anymore and just agree to disagree.
Lakey

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Goody, you can all get back to what you do best now then ... (talking total rot!).

Is that ad hom enough for you MattD?

 

[lkwdblds]

Things change over time.

I would think a loyalist in Scientology would be someone who is KSWing.....that would not include someone who is going beyond what LRH wrote or spoke about and trains on or uses 'other tech' along with LRH tech. If someone, even part of the time, uses anything other than LRH tech, they wouldn't exactly be loyal, would they?

A loyalist who was in C of S when LRH was alive and still on management lines is one thing. That era ended around 1981.

30 years later, I believe the definition of a loyalist would be changed. The internet emerged and has been in broad usage for about 15 years. Technical developments that Hubbard never dreamed of have already occurred. I believe it is totally unrealistic to expect anyone to continue following straight Hubbard from the 1950's and 1960's. To be gay in Hubbard's day was not acceptable to society and gays stayed in the closet. Today being gay is fully accepted. In the 50's when Hubbard wrote many of his books, most women were mothers and housewifes, today women are very active in big business on also their own entrepeneur businesses. We have a Black man as our President

In the 50's Hubbard could get away with saying all gays are at tone level 1.1. He could get away with disrespecting women in the workplace and putting down blacks in private conversation and now he could not get away with these things.

Times change, today's Hubbard followers can not be realistically expected to follow to the letter every policy Hubbard wrote back in the 1950's and write a KSW chit on someone who said all gays were not at 1.1.

Some change must enter in just by virtue of the changing times and more yet through the introduction of more modern tech in the society.
Lakey

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Look at my face ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJy4wV25f_o​

 

[lkwdblds]

Face, I am only mocking up being arrogant

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. (Clink)

Let ‘er buck!

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.

Face, I am not one to be arrogant. Here we are at about 265,000 hits and this is the first time I have ever bragged about starting the thread. I have been saying all along that the thread would have died out at about 7,500 hits if Sweetness & Light had not come along and at maybe 12,000 hits if Carmelo had not put his two cents in.

The thing is that for a while here there was an inner circle who just ignored all my posts. The only persons who ever responded were Sweetness, Carmelo, FoTi, Hats, Leon, Purple Haze and rarely, yourself.

I kept plugging away and then I began being attacked. I was courteous to all attackers including Free Being and Blip but recently some of our top posters began attacking me, in particular, Mark A Baker.

YOU KNOW ABOUT THE "RACE CARD", HOW ABOUT THE THREAD HOST CARD?

Finally I had enough and decided to take off my gloves and come out swinging back at these guys. My biggest weapon is that I am the originator and host of the thread. Its like an attorney playing the "race card", I decided to play the "host card." I don't make any friends doing this but it sure makes a statement which nobody can try to top without looking like a jealous fool!

CARMELO PHONED ME RECENTLY AND HE SAID THAT HE ALWAYS CONSIDERED THIS MY THREAD. That meant a lot to me as I considered him and I as equally responsible for the success of the thread.

"SHTICK" GETS THE THREAD MORE READERS, AND MORE POSTS!!
Face, rest easy please, my making a big deal about being thread host and getting all these hits is just shtick as the say in Yiddish comedy routines. Of course there is some truth in this. If you apply look, don't listen which Hubbard wrote, I come up as the one who started the thread.

The benefits of me bragging and taking credit for the success of the thread serve several purposes. FIrst, it is a way to land a large uppercut to the jaws of some of my critics but much more than that, it stirs up controversy and stirs up interest and it just causes the thread to have more hits, more replies and to attract more public.

Carmelo wanted to provide a big audience for some of our top poster such as Roger, Ted, Face, Carmelo, Purple Haze and so many others. His goal which soon became my goal has certainly come to fruition and we are still growing and even reaching new publics.

I make outrageous statements and talk too much about myself. Some of that is a bad comm cycle or case or weird personality traits but much of it is done on purpose just to create more viewership and more posting between thread members and their publics. Our posters, such as yourself Face, are the one's creating the thread. I am just here to stir up the pot and keep the viewership growing.
Lakey

 

[Leon]

I would think a loyalist in Scientology would be someone who is KSWing.....that would not include someone who is going beyond what LRH wrote or spoke about and trains on or uses 'other tech' along with LRH tech. If someone, even part of the time, uses anything other than LRH tech, they wouldn't exactly be loyal, would they?

One truly needs to seperate LRH from Scientology from the CofS. These are three distinctly different subjects.

Euclid "discovered" and formulated the basics of Geometry, but the subject of Geometry developed enormously after Euclid's death. The same with Hubbard. He wrote down and did a LOT of work on the subject of how to reverse the dwndling spiral that spiritual beings were on. He was not the firt person to do this nor was he the last. Though he was an important one.

The name "Scientology" can, in my opinion, by applied to all efforts to free the spirit in the way that Hubbard set out to do, and also to all subjects that seek a full understanding of the mind and how beings got entrapped in it, etc. All such subjects are attempts at "knowing how to know" and so qualify as Scientology, in the broad sense.

Ken Ogger extended the fromtiers of Scientology. So did Captain Bill, so did Alan Walter and Dennis Stephens and so have many many others. John Mcmaster and others did a lot of work that Hubbard claimed was his own, when in fact it wasn't. The subject of Scientology is not exclusive to the Church of Scientology and by a long shot is not limited to the works of L Ron Hubbard. And factually, much of what Hubbard presented as being Scientology was actually a gross violation of basic Scientology principles.

So one really needs to understand what one is dealing with and one needs to carefully diffentiate between what is and what isn't Scientology.

 

[Leon]

I hope you read my opening post to Free Being that started this discussion. I never used the term loyalist. I simply said that some people on the board believe that Hubbard could do no wrong and they believe in and use all his policies, both tech or admin.

Mark Baker initially said there were no such Hubbard "loyalists" on the board and then challenged me to name even one.

To me the words Hubbard Loyalist simply signified someone who believes that Hubbard could do no wrong and believes in and uses all his policies and tech. I just figured that is what MAB meant by the term and I started using it. It turned out MAB had a much different meaning for it than what I was using. He was using it more to signify freezone members or extremely loyal freezone members. I am not sure what he meant but as I wrote earlier, I don't want to spend anymore of my time on this discussion.
Lakey

I was answering FoTi. Your present kerfuffle I am bypassing completely.