What's new
By:
Filters

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
FoTi

FoTi

Crusader
Ted said:
Peeing in the woods is an invigorating experience approximated only by peeing in one's own backyard. Supervision is not required but on occasion a very nice addition to the experience.


:wink2:
Click to expand...

I've only heard guys talk about this being an invigorating experience. Never heard girls having this same point of view. :no:
 
Mark A. Baker

Mark A. Baker

Sponsor
lkwdblds said:
Candy, LH, myself and a mystery ESMB member who does not wish to be mentioned did the Riverside Art walk last night. ...
Click to expand...

Editorial suggestion, alter the above to: Candy, LH, myself and a friend ... .

The 'added information' is not helpful and invites the introduction of a 'guessing game'. If the person doesn't want to be identified then inviting a guessing game isn't exactly 'on' either.

In general when keeping confidences: LESS is more.


Mark A. Baker
 
RogerB

RogerB

Crusader
lkwdblds said:
Just because someone is knowledgable and smart is no guarantee of what their sense of humor is like or what might tickle their funny bone. Enjoy Toady bashing me, I admit he is kind of funny in his own way, I am not going to deny his humor. A good bash at my expense is part of my contribution to the Apollo '73 thread. Anyway I can help is alright with me. A little levity in the middle of the day is always nice.:dieslaughing:
Lakey
Click to expand...

Well, Lakey, my love, it is always a good thing to be able to laugh with friends . . . and even while I observe the little foibles of my friends, and forgive them, it is when something comes out of left field, so non-sequitur as to tickle my funny bone, I just have to enjoy the humor of it.

And to be honest, Toady . . . even his nic and avatar are a total send up to the heavens of humour . . . is bloody funny at times.

You see, in my view, he has a rather neat knack of disagreeing with something/someone and making it fun . . . . I don't think I've seen any post of his that has been vicious, nasty or destructive. It's just a fun presentation of the why and what with which he disagrees . . . Hell, I even think he did a send up me once . . . and it was so delicious I had to love him for it and respect that he doesn't hold with any (apparently none whatsoever) tech as workable.

Well, so what? His experience has led him to believing "tech" doesn't work . . . who the hell am I to try and convince him otherwise. I don't have to try and change his view of his experience; and I sure as hell don't have to try and make myself right on the issue.

I think Toady is possibly the funniest thing on two legs:yes: (And Luvvvv his avatar! :yes:)

Hey, Toady, is it true you don't think any tech, any tech at all, is workable??

I don't think you should try and argue that point with our Buddhist friends :no:

Rog
 
lkwdblds

lkwdblds

Crusader
Auditor's Toad said:
' How the hell do you come up with the agreement that what Olsa wrote is accurate."" ( In my best scientologese voice ) What she said Indicated !

This is a character analysis of one specific person. If it "indicates" to you fine. But you did more than just say it indicates. You agreed that it was accurate. You have no knowledge of whether it is accurate or not. Since I am the person being written about, I have full knowledge. In essence you are telling me that I am a liar or I am deluded.

If opinions about people are not allowed unless one has vast real life experience with the person one is allowed to form an opinion about then the future of chat boards is in dire trouble !
( Contrary to popular belief a chat board in neither a court of law or a high school debate held in the science lab ).

This is not an opinion about people. Opinions are ok and if something indicates, it indicates. When you knowingly participate in a character assasination on a specific person, if you have any personal integrity at all, you should know for sure what you are talking about.

It is one thing to tout the value of TRs ( confront ) and the lower scn grades ( Grade 0 - ability to talk to anybody about anything..etc ) - and then you put me on ignore ? LOL !

I have touted some "virtues" of LRH and some "virtues " of the tek.

There is an LRH quote, I believe from the code of honor, "Do not give or receive communication from someone unless you yourself desire it." I find this datum to be very useful. I made a decision that your posts were not something I wished to read. Your appropriate response might have been to just keep doing what you were doing or put me on ignore.

You were totally trashing nearly every sentence I wrote. Why on Earth would you want to keep reading my stuff if it was that bad?? Think about that for minute!! Put me on ignore if my writings are that bad!

Where we part in our sense of fairness is when I mention that Hitler loved his dog and treated it very well, uh, right up the moment he tested the cynadide on it. I don't just talk about what a great pet lover Hitler was when I know damn well know he killed his dog.

Okay, that makes sense, I take no offense with that statement.

You say that now after being on the ESMB ( since sometime in 2009 )you warn new people of at least some of the , shall we say, dark side of scientology.

I would do that if I run a new group of my own. The Sharone's and Markus's, you, Helluva and Gottabrain made strong arguments for presenting not just the pros to brand new people but also showing them the dark side of SCN. Your guys claim that brand new people must be exposed to the dark side has merit. I would make up a pack with Sharone's story, Markus's story, some RPF horror stories, abortion horror stories, disconnections between parents and siblings, etc. The Tabayoyon stories, husband and wife were gut wrenching accounts of much of this stuff. I see merit in a lot of your positions and this pack I want to put together arose because of your arguments and convictions. I did not do this to be liked by you guys as Olska suggests. I announced that I would do this and no one likes me any better. Olska is way off base on that, not "accurate" so to speak. You are the first person to acknowledge me for saying what I did and I thank you for the ack!

I do believe you said that. I ask you in speaking to the new people you have spoken to in the last month have you warned them at all ?

I just formulated this policy. I have not invoked it yet. Also, there is a problem with invoking it with Svetka's group up in Cupertino. I was invited up there as her guest and to be Candy's assistant in giving and scoring PCA tests. I am staying at her and her husband's home, eating their food and talking to their friends. I just don't think it was my place to apply this policy in a situation like that. However, I formulated the policy right after coming back. It was really Markus and Gottabrain who got me to see that I should do this from now on. I need to make up a pack with the pros of getting Scn type services outside the church and the cons of doing so. I would then hand out the packs and give people some time to study and make a decision if they want to go forward before giving anyone any sessions. It would have to be for my own group.

Are you doing what you said you would do or are you just saying on here what sounds good?

Lakey, I do like you but damned if I don't like you better when you are truthful.
Click to expand...

I really attempt to be truthful at all times. This is a tough thing to do, make up a booklet of all the horror stories. I feel now that just speaking for me, this is the best way to go. I personally feel that certain processes will work when applied with the urge to help in a safe environment. However, I acknowledge that you true "Exes" have a valid opinion that many fine people truly believe in with all their hearts. As I say, if one of my kids would have died in C of S, I am pretty sure that I would be in your camp at this time. I feel, in truth, that your position needs to be heard before anyone new gets started doing any action where Hubbard is involved.

If I passed out the booklet and the person still wanted to proceed, then I would know that I had clean hands. Believe me, being liked by y'all is not my primary motivation. I would enjoy being like by you people, of course, no doubt about it - you are a fine group of people, dedicated to your cause. Nothing wrong with wanting to be liked, but as one's prime motivation, it is no good to live for this. And what is more, just because I say this, I know, few if any of you will change your opinion of me.

Okay Toady, you wrote some good, from the heart type of stuff here and I did my best to give you truthful answers. We'll see if we can patch things up between us.
Sincerely, Lakey
 
Auditor's Toad

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
RogerB said:
Well, Lakey, my love, it is always a good thing to be able to laugh with friends . . . and even while I observe the little foibles of my friends, and forgive them, it is when something comes out of left field, so non-sequitur as to tickle my funny bone, I just have to enjoy the humor of it.

And to be honest, Toady . . . even his nic and avatar are a total send up to the heavens of humour . . . is bloody funny at times.

You see, in my view, he has a rather neat knack of disagreeing with something/someone and making it fun . . . . I don't think I've seen any post of his that has been vicious, nasty or destructive. It's just a fun presentation of the why and what with which he disagrees . . . Hell, I even think he did a send up me once . . . and it was so delicious I had to love him for it and respect that he doesn't hold with any (apparently none whatsoever) tech as workable.

Well, so what? His experience has led him to believing "tech" doesn't work . . . who the hell am I to try and convince him otherwise. I don't have to try and change his view of his experience; and I sure as hell don't have to try and make myself right on the issue.

I think Toady is possibly the funniest thing on two legs:yes: (And Luvvvv his avatar! :yes:)

Hey, Toady, is it true you don't think any tech, any tech at all, is workable??
I don't think you should try and argue that point with our Buddhist friends :no:

Rog
Click to expand...

That my man deserves not only an answer but a very honest answer based on own personal experience and that I have observed for well over 30 years - closer to 40 years of scientology.

I have to give some prefaces first. The people I have dealt with that have done crack tell me the sensation is like winning an Olympic Gold Medal and all that had to do to get that was suck on a pipe. Man, that sounds fantastic !
How can I not promote THAT to others?

Well, then come the stories of the young girls addicted to crack who lay in the crack house waiting for enough guys to throw in and buy her a rock after they have had their way with her. That becomes her life.

Or the person who after a few months or years of being on crack ( one of the more difficult drugs to kick entirely and go clean ) gets to a rehab center, a year or so in a half way house, and then some job to start back into "real" life.

Can I deny the "highs" the addict had ? Should I sing the praises of those "highs" and deny the degradation of selling off everything they owned to buy crack? Or how the neglect of their teeth - and other health - would now take thousands of dollars to fix? Not to mention the lost years of their life? Should I ignore all the downside when asked how is the "high" from illegal street drugs?
Or, heck, even from the addiction to legal pain killers?

Now to scientology. First, I'd have to go into the 1948 era " Affirmations " by L Ron Hubbard .

Then his actual war record vs what he claimed.

Make it short, just throw in the two links in my siggy line.

Let's skip children in the chain locker or being in the Sea Org...etc

( And I'll give anybody that as I got in and was involved in scn that information wasn't readily available but it is certainly is today - and is certainly known by the majority of people in these discussions on ESMB )

It takes a full and honest look at the cost in terms of humanity ( never mind the 20 years or so of time or the $350,000.00 or so to do the bridge ) to be able to answer " Are there gains available from scientology "?.

And, in all honesty, I'd have to say YES.

But, I'd hope that you'd also want to know what I felt it may well cost a person other than money to get those particular gains available from scientology. And that, I feel, is what the pro-scientology crowd here on ESMB so desparately wants omitted from any discussion of scientology.

Was that a fair answer?
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker

Mark A. Baker

Sponsor
Auditor's Toad said:
... Was that a fair answer?
Click to expand...

It's both honest & yours, hence it is fair.

Here's a suggestion: cut out extraneous material between the quotes in those posts to which you are responding (as I have done with yours). Use ellipsis as necessary to denote where cuts were made by you.

You responded to a single line of Roger's post, BUT you included the whole of the prior post. It's not necessary and it takes up additional computing resources. It can also confuse the issue of what exactly you are saying.

As long as you preserve the quote boxes from the ORIGINAL post with the 'magic number' embedded in the first (which is only directly visible in the post editor), your post will have an internal link back to the prior post so that the curious can 'refer back' (visible in the upper left corner of the quote box in your post).

It takes little additional time, clarifies that on which you actually choose to address in your comment and saves space.


Mark A. Baker
 
Auditor's Toad

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Mark A. Baker said:
It's both honest & yours, hence it is fair.

Here's a suggestion: cut out extraneous material between the quotes in those posts to which you are responding (as I have done with yours). Use ellipsis as necessary to denote where cuts were made by you.

You responded to a single line of Roger's post, BUT you included the whole of the prior post. It's not necessary and it takes up additional computing resources. It can also confuse the issue of what exactly you are saying.

As long as you preserve the quote boxes from the ORIGINAL post with the 'magic number' embedded in the first (which is only directly visible in the post editor), your post will have an internal link back to the prior post so that the curious can 'refer back' (visible in the upper left corner of the quote box in your post).

It takes little additional time, clarifies that on which you actually choose to address in your comment and saves space.


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

Thank you.

For the most part, I'm content for you to do it your way and I'll do it my way:)
 
lkwdblds

lkwdblds

Crusader
Character Assasination or Free Analysis by a professional Psych or Shrink?

Why would Olska go to the trouble of doing a "CHARACTER ASSASINATION" peace on me. Or maybe, if she is a psychologist or a psychiatrist, she just gave me a free professional consultation. Either way, why would someone take all the time and trouble to do this?

My guess is that my arguments and my posts, which did not agree 100% with her views and those of many of her associates, were very effective in exposing fallacies in their collective points of view. She viewed my conceeding on some points as an aberration which I had stemming from one or more types of psychosis which I was dramatizing, such as wanting to be liked or always having to be right.

THE COLLECTIVE MINDSET OF THE OTHER SIDE Their mindset consists of a two valued logic. Either you are an "ex" or you are not or "Either you agree with me 100% or you don't agree with me." There is no room for, "I agree with a lot of what you say, maybe 75%, but I have strong disagreement with the other 25%" That type of thinking does not seem to exist in Olska's paradigm.

Though it may not exist in her world, that was actually where I was coming from. Since my views were getting through and several of my debate opponents were given me compliments, she was offended that my thoughts were gaining traction amongst her associates.

It was not just my thoughts but also those of Candy, MAB, Leon, Terril, etc which were making some headway on that thread but I am only focusing on myself because it was my character which she choose to assasinate.

It was a Character Assasination or else a diagnosis that I am suffering from several severe mental disorders. If she felt it was the later, she could have sent me her post via PM and offered her analysis to me privately. By doing it on the open forum, it shows that she meant me no good will. She was just attempting in her own way to "Dead Agent" me and bring me down.

Why me? I was just too persistent and was poking lots of holes in the logic within the writings of many of her associates. I was determined to hold my position against a lot of opposition over there so she falsely assigned me the label of being addictive to posting on the internet. From that fallacious assumption, she then branched into "Denial" and "Arrested Development" and with her ersatz science she ran with the ball criticizing all aspects of my personality.

NOTICE - SHE ATTACKED ONLY ME PERSONALLY AND NEVER MENTIONED ANY OF THE ISSUES ON WHICH HER AND I DIFFERED. ALSO, SHE NEVER RESPONDED TO MY REQUEST DEMANDING AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND A REBUTTAL TO MY COMMENT ABOUT THE "EXES" TAKING ON THE COLOR OF HUBBARD WHEN THEY INSIST ON 100% COMPLIANCE TO THEIR VIEWS.

Note, as Candy has pointed out, when someone is pointing a finger at you, the other 3 fingers are curled and are pointing back at them and that is what we have here, a deeply disturbed individual pointing to her own aberrations.

I REST MY CASE.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Auditor's Toad

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Lakey sez "Why would Olska go to the trouble of doing a "CHARACTER ASSASINATION" peace on me".

The piece on him far from being a character assasination far more likely seems to be accurate enough for no one to object to it - except Lakey.

His tirade makes her point, does it not?

I submit his case is not at rest on this:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top