FoTi
Crusader
Wow! These wimp.com vids are really fun FoTi.
Yeh...nice little bites of short, sometimes very unusual entertainment.
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Yeh...nice little bites of short, sometimes very unusual entertainment.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
having a chat with a chum today
I don’t understand why canned oysters taste not at all like raw oysters. Raw rocks. Canned is barely OK.
but that isn’t what this is about.
I left the C0$ back in 1976, before Sec Checking had become so profitable.
The Bill Franks’ note was not a big revelation for me. I’m super glad that it really indicated to so many people.
What I wanted to say, before I go off line for a week or two, is that I never really noticed that LRH said O/Ws underlie ARC Xs. Yes, I did the BC, yes i remember him ranting on and on about a missed W/H blah blah blah. That concept never grabbed my attention ever.
I was inculcated in auditing by one, Phil Spickler, at the Santa Clara, Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto Scio joints. You audit the PC in front of you.
I guess others across the globe never got the memo.
Let’s just take myself, my wife, and our youngest daughter as a focus group.
My choice in life is to create, re create, make, and foster LOVE. That is my raison de ete.
My daughter digs knowledge.
My wife is an order creating person.
If one audits generically, cookie cutter fashion, one size fits all, some processes are going to be hits, some misses. This especially applies to Standard Tech and programs required.
If you audit the person in front of you, you tailer make your auditing to help them understand, perceive, and act within their goals, their dreams, their aspirations, on their journey of love, knowledge, Order, or whatever.
An O/W can be the basic on a desire to leave. So can a recoiling from chaos. A good auditor knows the question to ask of the PC in front of him/her. It really isn’t a rote process. You are in an interchange with the person you’re auditing. You aren’t reading from a script written in 1966 by a dead guy.
You help the PC get to being who they want to be, doing what they want to do, having what they want to have. It is not like a cattle chute, where everyone goes through the very same gate to Oat Tea land. You help the person become their idea of themselves, not LRH’s grade chart completion.
I don’t understand why canned oysters taste not at all like raw oysters. Raw rocks. Canned is barely OK.
but that isn’t what this is about.
I left the C0$ back in 1976, before Sec Checking had become so profitable.
The Bill Franks’ note was not a big revelation for me. I’m super glad that it really indicated to so many people.
What I wanted to say, before I go off line for a week or two, is that I never really noticed that LRH said O/Ws underlie ARC Xs. Yes, I did the BC, yes i remember him ranting on and on about a missed W/H blah blah blah. That concept never grabbed my attention ever.
I was inculcated in auditing by one, Phil Spickler, at the Santa Clara, Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto Scio joints. You audit the PC in front of you.
I guess others across the globe never got the memo.
Let’s just take myself, my wife, and our youngest daughter as a focus group.
My choice in life is to create, re create, make, and foster LOVE. That is my raison de ete.
My daughter digs knowledge.
My wife is an order creating person.
If one audits generically, cookie cutter fashion, one size fits all, some processes are going to be hits, some misses. This especially applies to Standard Tech and programs required.
If you audit the person in front of you, you tailer make your auditing to help them understand, perceive, and act within their goals, their dreams, their aspirations, on their journey of love, knowledge, Order, or whatever.
An O/W can be the basic on a desire to leave. So can a recoiling from chaos. A good auditor knows the question to ask of the PC in front of him/her. It really isn’t a rote process. You are in an interchange with the person you’re auditing. You aren’t reading from a script written in 1966 by a dead guy.
You help the PC get to being who they want to be, doing what they want to do, having what they want to have. It is not like a cattle chute, where everyone goes through the very same gate to Oat Tea land. You help the person become their idea of themselves, not LRH’s grade chart completion.
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
About Those ARCXs
Come on man, are you serious?
You mean you audit the person in front of you?
Okay. Just kidding.
The red-on-white tech is in of itself good and not so good, sometimes flat out wrong, and certainly incomplete. Aside from all of that, the ~culture~ of the church has shifted the actual written word to mean something that suits their own ends. That shift is technically wrong, in a scientology sense, but close enough for the untrained/inexperienced to buy into it.
Now I don't have references handy as my son just piled a bunch of boxes in front of my tech vols while making room in the garage to tear down and refurb his 240sx. But I can speak from memory.
It is said that people leave because of misunderstood words and symbols. What is that but an ARCX in the making?
It is said that misunderstood words and symbols lead to inadvertent overts. One could commit an inadvertent overt feeling just jolly about one's activities while not knowing an overt is being committed. And that would be an ARCX following an overt! Everyone reading this could come up with a time that happened.
Speaking of overts, modern sec checking, and even all sec checking that I am aware of, played against a being's own sense of goodness, can grind a person down to the point where they are giving up overts that ain't even overts. How many of you auditors had to sit through session ruds where the pc had to tell you one more time that he had jerked off? How is that an overt? Did it harm the greater number of Dynamics? No! It is just a social indiscretion--in some circles.
It is said that people leave because of their overts. Really? I can think of staying as being an overt while leaving is a pro-survival action. I should have left after about 6 years in. Why? It was a NGC/PTS situation for me and my family. Only, you can't de-PTS from someone or something that is supposed to be the very thing used to de-PTS, yet it is where the suppression is coming from. Pheww!
Okay. About those ARCXs. The tech of it is this: At the bottom of an ARCX is BPC. You can casually verify that just by looking over the L1C and L4BRA (or B or C or whatever it is these days). See all those possibilities? If I recall, the L1C asks just once for a WH or M-WH.
The tech of it: ARCXs are caused by BPC. Withholds and missed withholds are a primary source of BPC. But, it is not a WH or M-WH at the bottom of every ARCX.
And as far as auditing goes, we just ask for ARCXs first because a person audited over one will get worse. When audited over a PTP or WH there will be no change in the pc's graph until the PTPs or WHs are cleared up.
To find an ARCX and then go off looking for the overt and WH at the bottom of that is simply gross out-tech which, I imagine, would do nothing less than further ARCX the pc--whether you believe in scientology or not.
If you have gotten this far, thank you for your attention. I just wanted to say something about that after reading the Bill Frank's thread.
Come on man, are you serious?
You mean you audit the person in front of you?
Okay. Just kidding.
The red-on-white tech is in of itself good and not so good, sometimes flat out wrong, and certainly incomplete. Aside from all of that, the ~culture~ of the church has shifted the actual written word to mean something that suits their own ends. That shift is technically wrong, in a scientology sense, but close enough for the untrained/inexperienced to buy into it.
Now I don't have references handy as my son just piled a bunch of boxes in front of my tech vols while making room in the garage to tear down and refurb his 240sx. But I can speak from memory.
It is said that people leave because of misunderstood words and symbols. What is that but an ARCX in the making?
It is said that misunderstood words and symbols lead to inadvertent overts. One could commit an inadvertent overt feeling just jolly about one's activities while not knowing an overt is being committed. And that would be an ARCX following an overt! Everyone reading this could come up with a time that happened.
Speaking of overts, modern sec checking, and even all sec checking that I am aware of, played against a being's own sense of goodness, can grind a person down to the point where they are giving up overts that ain't even overts. How many of you auditors had to sit through session ruds where the pc had to tell you one more time that he had jerked off? How is that an overt? Did it harm the greater number of Dynamics? No! It is just a social indiscretion--in some circles.
It is said that people leave because of their overts. Really? I can think of staying as being an overt while leaving is a pro-survival action. I should have left after about 6 years in. Why? It was a NGC/PTS situation for me and my family. Only, you can't de-PTS from someone or something that is supposed to be the very thing used to de-PTS, yet it is where the suppression is coming from. Pheww!
Okay. About those ARCXs. The tech of it is this: At the bottom of an ARCX is BPC. You can casually verify that just by looking over the L1C and L4BRA (or B or C or whatever it is these days). See all those possibilities? If I recall, the L1C asks just once for a WH or M-WH.
The tech of it: ARCXs are caused by BPC. Withholds and missed withholds are a primary source of BPC. But, it is not a WH or M-WH at the bottom of every ARCX.
And as far as auditing goes, we just ask for ARCXs first because a person audited over one will get worse. When audited over a PTP or WH there will be no change in the pc's graph until the PTPs or WHs are cleared up.
To find an ARCX and then go off looking for the overt and WH at the bottom of that is simply gross out-tech which, I imagine, would do nothing less than further ARCX the pc--whether you believe in scientology or not.
If you have gotten this far, thank you for your attention. I just wanted to say something about that after reading the Bill Frank's thread.
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
Come on man, are you serious?
You mean you audit the person in front of you?
Okay. Just kidding.
The red-on-white tech is in of itself good and not so good, sometimes flat out wrong, and certainly incomplete. Aside from all of that, the ~culture~ of the church has shifted the actual written word to mean something that suits their own ends. That shift is technically wrong, in a scientology sense, but close enough for the untrained/inexperienced to buy into it.
Now I don't have references handy as my son just piled a bunch of boxes in front of my tech vols while making room in the garage to tear down and refurb his 240sx. But I can speak from memory.
It is said that people leave because of misunderstood words and symbols. What is that but an ARCX in the making?
It is said that misunderstood words and symbols lead to inadvertent overts. One could commit an inadvertent overt feeling just jolly about one's activities while not knowing an overt is being committed. And that would be an ARCX following an overt! Everyone reading this could come up with a time that happened.
Speaking of overts, modern sec checking, and even all sec checking that I am aware of, played against a being's own sense of goodness, can grind a person down to the point where they are giving up overts that ain't even overts. How many of you auditors had to sit through session ruds where the pc had to tell you one more time that he had jerked off? How is that an overt? Did it harm the greater number of Dynamics? No! It is just a social indiscretion--in some circles.
It is said that people leave because of their overts. Really? I can think of staying as being an overt while leaving is a pro-survival action. I should have left after about 6 years in. Why? It was a NGC/PTS situation for me and my family. Only, you can't de-PTS from someone or something that is supposed to be the very thing used to de-PTS, yet it is where the suppression is coming from. Pheww!
Okay. About those ARCXs. The tech of it is this: At the bottom of an ARCX is BPC. You can casually verify that just by looking over the L1C and L4BRA (or B or C or whatever it is these days). See all those possibilities? If I recall, the L1C asks just once for a WH or M-WH.
The tech of it: ARCXs are caused by BPC. Withholds and missed withholds are a primary source of BPC. But, it is not a WH or M-WH at the bottom of every ARCX.
And as far as auditing goes, we just ask for ARCXs first because a person audited over one will get worse. When audited over a PTP or WH there will be no change in the pc's graph until the PTPs or WHs are cleared up.
To find an ARCX and then go off looking for the overt and WH at the bottom of that is simply gross out-tech which, I imagine, would do nothing less than further ARCX the pc--whether you believe in scientology or not.
If you have gotten this far, thank you for your attention. I just wanted to say something about that after reading the Bill Frank's thread.
I got this far.....
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I got this far.....
me ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^too.
Hatshepsut
Crusader
ditto
RogerB
Crusader
Well, Ted,
You wrote:
I was with you all the way, my man. And what you said was well said!
Yessir!
In mid 1963 when the BPC and and ARCX tech was put together, it was clearly and loudly stated by Hubbard that BPC was what caused ARCXs . . . and blows.
That's what the original corrections lists were based on and developed to handle. As Alan had noted in his Pandora's Box thread . . . the 1st list created was what is now the L4 (subsequently revised, revised, revised). For those old-timers who remember, R2H was the R/D devised to use the L1C to clean up ARCXs caused by other than L&N session goofs. This in early '64 or maybe late '63.
It is to be noted, sec checking (a la the Joberg) predates this (I'm working from memory now) . . . but then the Joberg was not a police-type action in those days . . . it was used in a true confessional session for case gain for the benefit of the PC.
When the switch was introduced to introduce the later notions that O/Ws caused blows I don't have precisely pegged . . . . but I will tell you O/Ws as tech was introduced in 1960! And it sure as shit had nothing to do with the idea they "caused blows"!
Blows either form session or course or orgs up until, certainly, 1964 was always known to be because of BPC and upsets/ARCXs! In other words, if you screw up and/or are rude and piss the guy off, he will either knuckle you or walk out on you.
It figures That's standard human conduct!
Rog
You wrote:
I was with you all the way, my man. And what you said was well said!
Yessir!In mid 1963 when the BPC and and ARCX tech was put together, it was clearly and loudly stated by Hubbard that BPC was what caused ARCXs . . . and blows.
That's what the original corrections lists were based on and developed to handle. As Alan had noted in his Pandora's Box thread . . . the 1st list created was what is now the L4 (subsequently revised, revised, revised). For those old-timers who remember, R2H was the R/D devised to use the L1C to clean up ARCXs caused by other than L&N session goofs. This in early '64 or maybe late '63.
It is to be noted, sec checking (a la the Joberg) predates this (I'm working from memory now) . . . but then the Joberg was not a police-type action in those days . . . it was used in a true confessional session for case gain for the benefit of the PC.
When the switch was introduced to introduce the later notions that O/Ws caused blows I don't have precisely pegged . . . . but I will tell you O/Ws as tech was introduced in 1960! And it sure as shit had nothing to do with the idea they "caused blows"!
Blows either form session or course or orgs up until, certainly, 1964 was always known to be because of BPC and upsets/ARCXs! In other words, if you screw up and/or are rude and piss the guy off, he will either knuckle you or walk out on you.
It figures
That's standard human conduct!Rog
lkwdblds
Crusader
Great post! Just one comment defending Hubbard's approach
Carmelo - your post is straight from the heart and very brilliant. I just had a comment on the two sentences I highlighted above in blue, "A good auditor knows the question to ask of the PC in front of him/her. It really isn't a rote process."
I believe your statements to be true but to be a good auditor and know instinctively or intuitively the right question to ask really requires a virtuoso as an auditor, a person for whom auditing is an art and not a technology. Such as person is a master and knows his/her subject inside out.
The ability to know the right question to ask instinctively is a gift which you have but realistically, not everyone who studies to be an auditor is going to be able to attain this ability.
In all fairness to Hubbard, he was trying to provide a cook book approach, i.e. a rote process for every situation where someone who had partial understanding rather than full understanding could fall back on a cook book command and without fully understanding why, come up with a good result.
He was going after successfully processing the entire planet and needed large numbers of auditors to even make a dent in this task. I can see why, under these conditions, he might have lowered his standards to just giving everybody rote commands to use instead of concentrating on building up a corps of real masters. I am not condoning his lowering of standards but I can see why he elected to go with rote commands.
Lakey
Carmelo - your post is straight from the heart and very brilliant. I just had a comment on the two sentences I highlighted above in blue, "A good auditor knows the question to ask of the PC in front of him/her. It really isn't a rote process."
I believe your statements to be true but to be a good auditor and know instinctively or intuitively the right question to ask really requires a virtuoso as an auditor, a person for whom auditing is an art and not a technology. Such as person is a master and knows his/her subject inside out.
The ability to know the right question to ask instinctively is a gift which you have but realistically, not everyone who studies to be an auditor is going to be able to attain this ability.
In all fairness to Hubbard, he was trying to provide a cook book approach, i.e. a rote process for every situation where someone who had partial understanding rather than full understanding could fall back on a cook book command and without fully understanding why, come up with a good result.
He was going after successfully processing the entire planet and needed large numbers of auditors to even make a dent in this task. I can see why, under these conditions, he might have lowered his standards to just giving everybody rote commands to use instead of concentrating on building up a corps of real masters. I am not condoning his lowering of standards but I can see why he elected to go with rote commands.
Lakey
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Good points. The emphasis on the arcx certainly makes sense as that is fundamentally what will interfere with any attempted auditing. It must as the to the degree a pc is arcxn he is out of comm and faced with a ptp.
Unlike with CO, I found the ideas of the 'withhold' & 'missed withhold' to be very insightful. I'd noticed for years the change in 'atmosphere' around others when some minor event transpires, such as someone making a minor remark in passing. The underlying 'withhold' needn't even be a particularly 'big' thing. It's the idea of the 'withholding' that seems to be the most highly charged part of the equation.
Since learning of the mwh, I've learned to pull the thread on such occurrences to a good result. As you suggest, it is not something that is necessarily present, but it can be very useful to check. When it is present it can be a significant stumbling block. Just spotting the 'who' of who 'missed a withhold' can itself release a ton of bpc.
Mark A. Baker
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Most people's every day secrets aren't going to cause them to explode if you miss em. It could__ but not the raging animal reaction you can get from sticking a pin in someone's raw BPC.
For instance, if you accuse someone of stealing your purse off the seat next to you on a train, you might get a furious reaction from the accused. If he DID take your pocketbook, you might get denial and some drama. However, if he DIDN'T but was recently lucky enough to get probation instead of 25 yrs for bank robbery.....you've just attempted to push at him 20 more yrs of jail time! So in this instance being innocent and having that particular BPC inflamed would give you the bigger reaction of the two. Much bigger probably.
It's BPC
For instance, if you accuse someone of stealing your purse off the seat next to you on a train, you might get a furious reaction from the accused. If he DID take your pocketbook, you might get denial and some drama. However, if he DIDN'T but was recently lucky enough to get probation instead of 25 yrs for bank robbery.....you've just attempted to push at him 20 more yrs of jail time! So in this instance being innocent and having that particular BPC inflamed would give you the bigger reaction of the two. Much bigger probably.
It's BPC
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Most people's every day secrets aren't going to cause them to explode if you miss em. It could__ but not the raging animal reaction you can get from sticking a pin in someone's raw BPC.
For instance, if you accuse someone of stealing your purse off the seat next to you on a train, you might get a furious reaction from the accused. If he DID take your pocketbook, you might get denial and some drama. However, if he DIDN'T but was recently lucky enough to get probation instead of 25 yrs for bank robbery.....you've just attempted to push at him 20 more yrs of jail time! So in this instance being innocent and having that particular BPC inflamed would give you the bigger reaction of the two. Much bigger probably.
It's BPC
Good example. I could feel the heat just in reading it.
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Thanks Ted!
Been busy all night as I found this series of vids on YouTube. It's
The Veritas Show with Mel Fabregas. This series is with the WebBot guy Clif High...there are 6
If you type in The Veritas Show it has its own YouTube channel. Each show is listed with its contents. Some are really good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASMIcWO0wGo
Been busy all night as I found this series of vids on YouTube. It's
The Veritas Show with Mel Fabregas. This series is with the WebBot guy Clif High...there are 6
If you type in The Veritas Show it has its own YouTube channel. Each show is listed with its contents. Some are really good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASMIcWO0wGo
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Just as neat a find as Coast To Coast, or NewRealities, or ProjectCamelot. Check out the WebBot predictions.
Jim Humble
I believe this is the same dude who used to sell his tonic to us in Scn. FoTi.....what say you??
There are 4 vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6myKkJG2oY
Jim Humble
I believe this is the same dude who used to sell his tonic to us in Scn. FoTi.....what say you??
There are 4 vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6myKkJG2oY
Last edited:
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Lakey, Purple, Sharone,
I have not missed one video
I have not missed one video
lkwdblds
Crusader
Good!
Purple and I are going back to Cupertino this coming week. It is going to be P.S.'s 80th birthday. I am looking forward to meeting him. Purple will probably make more videos. At this point, I don't know if I'll make another video. I really don't have much more to recount regarding the Apollo and the Hubbard family.
I was thinking that if I am pushed into making another video, I would tell more about my CCLA experience. I have tons of anecdotes that I could spin regarding Yvonne and some of the incredible goings on which occurred at CCLA.
The Bill Franks thread is sweeping ESMB. A lot of good material is coming out. Chuck Beatty just posted an interesting article outlining where and how Int Management gets it income.
I had mentioned Bill Franks at the very beginning of my CCLA story on this thread. When I was very new to C of S, being in Scn only about 3 months, I had a meeting with him at the L.A. Org. I was trying to get that Org to deliver to me what they promised after purchasing a large, for that time, $1,300 training package.
Instead of delivering, the Org attempted to sell me Life Repair and ARC Straightwire for about $1,500 more. SOUND FAMILIAR? I demanded to see the E.D. of the Org and Franks had just come back from the Apollo, having done FEBC, the highest management course available.
I didn't know much but I did know that "We deliver what we promise" was the senior policy in Scientology. I felt that by asserting this policy, the wisened and supremely well trained Franks would have to be on my side.
WRONG!!! Franks tried to blow me off like a piece of dandruff on someone's lapel. He spoke to an aid and under his breath he called me dangerous and a psycho and ordered the aide to get me regged for Life Repair and Straightwire. Fortunately for me, I had super keen hearing and heard every word he said. As the aide started to walk me to the registrar's office, I lied and told the aide I had to use the men's room. I ducked out the men's room back door and went over to CCLA and asked to speak to Yvonne.
My brother was already on staff there and had told Yvonne about me and she already had approached me twice about transferring to CCLA. This time I took her up on it.
Franks did not have good TR's and I did not like his space, it did not at all seem clean and expansive. I thought that he was the nut job and did not want to be in an Org run by him.
MISJUDGING HIGHLY RANKED PEOPLE IN THE EARLY DAYS
I based my judgements only on how senior people treated me. On this basis, I formed the idea that Bill Franks was probably an SP and Don Keeler, CC's Class VIII Case Supervisor was certainly an SP.
I have heard many complimentary things about Keeler from Purple Haze and others and finally met him again recently. The man is definitely not an SP and is a nice guy. He has led a productive life since our run ins in the early 70's. I buried the hatchett and now like him.
Based on Frank's life since my one incident with him over 40 years ago, I am going to change my opinion of him as well. Based on what has been written about him and on what he himself has written on the new thread, I am changing my opinion of him from asshole to good guy! Even so, I am glad I walked out of his Org and over to CCLA back in 1970. Doing that was one of the smartest choices I have ever made.
Lakey
Lakey, Purple, Sharone,
I have not missed one video
Purple and I are going back to Cupertino this coming week. It is going to be P.S.'s 80th birthday. I am looking forward to meeting him. Purple will probably make more videos. At this point, I don't know if I'll make another video. I really don't have much more to recount regarding the Apollo and the Hubbard family.
I was thinking that if I am pushed into making another video, I would tell more about my CCLA experience. I have tons of anecdotes that I could spin regarding Yvonne and some of the incredible goings on which occurred at CCLA.
The Bill Franks thread is sweeping ESMB. A lot of good material is coming out. Chuck Beatty just posted an interesting article outlining where and how Int Management gets it income.
I had mentioned Bill Franks at the very beginning of my CCLA story on this thread. When I was very new to C of S, being in Scn only about 3 months, I had a meeting with him at the L.A. Org. I was trying to get that Org to deliver to me what they promised after purchasing a large, for that time, $1,300 training package.
Instead of delivering, the Org attempted to sell me Life Repair and ARC Straightwire for about $1,500 more. SOUND FAMILIAR? I demanded to see the E.D. of the Org and Franks had just come back from the Apollo, having done FEBC, the highest management course available.
I didn't know much but I did know that "We deliver what we promise" was the senior policy in Scientology. I felt that by asserting this policy, the wisened and supremely well trained Franks would have to be on my side.
WRONG!!! Franks tried to blow me off like a piece of dandruff on someone's lapel. He spoke to an aid and under his breath he called me dangerous and a psycho and ordered the aide to get me regged for Life Repair and Straightwire. Fortunately for me, I had super keen hearing and heard every word he said. As the aide started to walk me to the registrar's office, I lied and told the aide I had to use the men's room. I ducked out the men's room back door and went over to CCLA and asked to speak to Yvonne.
My brother was already on staff there and had told Yvonne about me and she already had approached me twice about transferring to CCLA. This time I took her up on it.
Franks did not have good TR's and I did not like his space, it did not at all seem clean and expansive. I thought that he was the nut job and did not want to be in an Org run by him.
MISJUDGING HIGHLY RANKED PEOPLE IN THE EARLY DAYS
I based my judgements only on how senior people treated me. On this basis, I formed the idea that Bill Franks was probably an SP and Don Keeler, CC's Class VIII Case Supervisor was certainly an SP.
I have heard many complimentary things about Keeler from Purple Haze and others and finally met him again recently. The man is definitely not an SP and is a nice guy. He has led a productive life since our run ins in the early 70's. I buried the hatchett and now like him.
Based on Frank's life since my one incident with him over 40 years ago, I am going to change my opinion of him as well. Based on what has been written about him and on what he himself has written on the new thread, I am changing my opinion of him from asshole to good guy! Even so, I am glad I walked out of his Org and over to CCLA back in 1970. Doing that was one of the smartest choices I have ever made.
Lakey
Last edited:
FoTi
Crusader
FoTi
Crusader
Just as neat a find as Coast To Coast, or NewRealities, or ProjectCamelot. Check out the WebBot predictions.
Jim Humble
I believe this is the same dude who used to sell his tonic to us in Scn. FoTi.....what say you??
There are 4 vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6myKkJG2oY
The same dude that used to sell his tonic to us in Scn? I don't understand what you are talking about. Could you explain?
Hatshepsut
Crusader
We had an old timer around by that name in the 70s.
Who is it selling that liquid that you drink or put on your skin that works miracles and boosts your immune system. You posted the address and a video for me a month ago. I wanted to know if he's the same guy. Could not find your post to compare again the two vids.
Who is it selling that liquid that you drink or put on your skin that works miracles and boosts your immune system. You posted the address and a video for me a month ago. I wanted to know if he's the same guy. Could not find your post to compare again the two vids.
- Status