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

[FoTi]

Yes Foti, I could do as you suggest ... or I could ignore your advice completely and continue to post to the lurkers and newly out and I think I'll probably do that, because it matters more (to me) than you or your new guru matter.

Your bashing people here, might be fun for you and something that you enjoy doing, but is not going to help the lurkers or the newly out.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Your bashing people here, might be fun for you, but is not going to help the lurkers or the newly out.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=559579&postcount=1

 

[RogerB]

Yes !

And thank you Roger for the clarification on your role at the Freezone Convention.

As you know, it wasn't presented on this board in this thread that way at all.
...

I had to be away while a musican friend of mine stopped by to skim through a play book with a singer picking tunes for an upcoming show. I got to listen while he played the piano and she sang.

Wasn't hard to shut off the 'puter and listen to show tunes and jazz ( Unfortunately, not the kind of stuff that some have posted will increase my IQ 1 point for every hour I listen to it.....where have I heard that one before...nevermind ).
....

Someone somewhere posted above they doubt anyone who has been in scientoology doesn't on some level still use some of it every day.

I've posted I still use some of it.

Let me put it this way, having been on course or auditing for the better part of some 30 years for some of it not to be ingrained deeply a person would have to be brain dead... would they not ?

If anyone has found a way to bleach scientoology out of their brain do please let me know how.

And if there is no way to do that, as I suspect there is not, then could the people who have to point out " if you did scientoology then you still do scientoology " please take a deep breath and try to make somewhat saner statements?

And I know, I know, some people just have to compulsively talk the talk of it by using all the cutesy little cult buzz words.

Yes, folks do "interpret" and "opinionate" . . . .

Alan Walter created a wonderful process/exercise in this regard. It's called the "Truth & Opinions Exercise (or maybe Process)"

Basically, it's a wonderful "objectives" type process, and not only does it facilitate you arriving causatively in present time, but very awaredly so.

You see, most ordinary folks don't truly, actually observe and perceive what they are interfacing with or relating to. What they are constantly doing, in present time, is superimposing opinions and altering "think-type-stuff" on their environment, the people and the communications they are involved with.

No surprise we see it here on ESMB, no?

The process is simply these commands. Client and processor are abulatory.

Processor: "Notice that (indicate and named thing/object/person, etc.)"
Client does so and indicates having done so.
Processor: "Tell me a fact about that (item)." Ack answer.
Processor: "Tell me an opinion about that (item)."
Ack answer . . . . .

Continue process till the usual wow! big wins, realizations from the client.

What is going on with this process is that the client is being given the opportunity to exercise his/her ability to perceive and to observe any automaticities he/she may have that constantly alters the ability to simply, actually perceive accurately what is there.

Folks are often absolutely amazed at what is discovered (both client and (new) processors) doing this process.

It's usually a big surprise to folks to discover that they are chronically superimposing altering "think" on their environment and relationships and thus not really operating with accuracy as a result

'Nuff said on that

Rog

 

[RogerB]

And another point on Toady's post I'm answering above.

It's quite a different item than that of superimposed, altering opinions.

This is on the subject of experience, as in, how our experiences in life may or may not affect or influence us later in life.

MAB and Toady spoke on the carried forward influence $cn has in our lives.

Here's the drill

Let's look at the stuff of Freud, Hubbard, et al . . . the stuff of "engrams" and traumatic incident recordings/impressions in the person's mind or "psyche." You can take your pick of whose versions and remedy of that phenomena to use in relating to my little ditty here

Engrams and traumatic incident recordings in our minds/psychies often have unwanted and hidden influences on our lives.

But, if these incidents are addressed and successfully (by whatever technique) "eliminated," reduced or "erased" . . . . what has happened??

The truth of the incident or event has not been lost no.

What has happened is that the negative charge and power of the incident/event to negatively impact or influence the person has been eliminated; and---and here is an important point---the knowledge of and contained in the incident/event is retained but no longer negatively affecting the person.

That is, the negative charge and trauma has been converted from being a harmful record to that of pure, even useful, knowledge.

And the truth of the incident/event lives on with us . . . . till (well that's a subject for another occasion).

So I write this in the context of Ted's earlier comment and MAB's and Toady's exchange above on the issue of the $cn "experience." Once you've had it, you've got it!

The decision each of us now has is: how to handle it, what to do with or about it The truth is, there is no way of avoiding it once you've got it

So your decision is, waaddyu going to do about it? Suffer it? Or convert it to beneficial knowledge . . . .

Your choice.

Rog

 

[lkwdblds]

No need to report bashers to Emma!

Who cares if someone is an ex or an ex-ex or an ex-ex-ex or if someone is more moderate than someone else, or some people like to use some of the tech or not. What difference does it make? If people are out of the cult, they can do whatever they want to do. What's the big fight about? All I can think of here is that LRH's policy and OSA's policy is attack, attack, attack....cause turmoil and trouble and create chaos for those who have left the CoS and speak out. Isn't it a Scientology trick to create trouble and confusion among exes? Isn't that what seems to be happening here?

And Toady doesn't make the rules here, Lakey, Emma does. Toady can have any "opinions" he wants. It doesn't mean his "opinions" are right or wrong...they are just his "opinions". He can also make up his own definitions if he wants to. It doesn't mean you have to accept them.

If someone is bashing you, please report it to Emma.

And please untwist your knickers.

FoTi - Bashing is just a term for disagreement where not only a person's viewpoints or ideas are disagreed with but the person himself or herself is subjected to personal attack. That is the way I use the term, but I have never looked it up. Here is a dictionary definition.

[bash-ing] Show IPA

–noun
1. the act of beating, whipping, or thrashing: a series of unsolved bashings and robberies.
2. a decisive defeat: We gave the visiting team a good bashing.
3. (used in combination)
a. unprovoked physical assaults against members of a specified group: gay-bashing.
b. verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation: feminist-bashing; China-bashing

The only definition that has anything to do with internet posting seems to be the last one (in blue). That one does not go far enough. I think that what separates bashing from a valid critique is when a personal attack is made on a person rather than on what that person says.

My own personal policy is never to bash. Probably in busts of anger, I have lost my cool and bashed on several occasions. I don't remember specific instances of doing this but I know that I have done it. All those times were just when my buttons were pushed so hard that my case restimulated out of control and I acted inappropriately.

When a person gets bashed by one or more ESMB members, I believe that is just normal Message Board SOP. The person who is being bashed should be able to defend their own position and not bring in Emma. I am sure that she has more important things to do than to clean up petty squabbles between posters. It would have to be something really major, such as using racial or religious slurs against someone before I would bring in Emma. So far, on ESMB, I have never encountered anything of this nature.

I can't recall ever bashing Toady. He was picking apart every sentence of every post I was writing. I tried politely to get him to stop but that encouraged him to press on with more determination. Finally I put him on ignore which totally handled the problem. Now I have cancelled his ignore.

I took on a large task on the Sharone thread. There are two main factions on that thread. One faction consists of Candy, Terril, Leon, MAB and myself and the other faction, much larger, consists of Helluva, Veda, Alanzo, Toady, Sharone, Markus, Gottabrain, ItoldyouIwastrouble, Infine, Mr. Nobody,DB and others.

The only person in the Helluva faction who attempted to see the other side of the picture was Gottabrain. Markus may also be included to a smaller degree.

The extremely unusual thing about this thread was that Candy's videos were copied from another source by Sharone without Candy's knowledge or permission. THIS ACTIVITY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO EMMA. Had Candy done so, the thread might have been closed down right away.

The other real oddity about this is that Sharone posted them without comment! That turned out to be the key to all that developed!!

Had Sharone posted them without Candy's knowledge or permission and then bashed Candy, Candy probably would have notified EMMA and had the thread closed down.

Candy took Sharone's "no comment" to signify that he liked the tapes so he was doing Candy a favor by promoting them. That is why the thread was allowed to go forward without a complaint being filed.

Once the hostilities started between the two factions, I wanted to see if there was any way to establish common ground and a truce between the two groups. Terril, Mark Baker and Leon also made efforts in this direction. I thought that Mark's efforts were the most effective of all of us. He used a keen eye, lots of knowledge and his own brand of logic to reveal some incredibly subtle insights which I thought might find common ground with the other side. Unfortunately, nothing positive happened with Mark's posts. Terril had a brilliant exchange with Veda. Veda opened up a little more than usual but the final outcome was no improvement in relationships between the two factions. Ditto for Leon's efforts.

Post Mortem - The thread is still running hot and heavy, Vinaire just showed up there today to make a short post. I have decided to drop out of the debate, for now, at least.

Should Candy have stopped the thread at the beginning and avoided all of these hostilities. My opinion is "no". This thread provided much information and was entertaining and stimulating. A lot of deep seated beliefs as well as hostilities were brought to the surface. In summation, it is probably better that the thread now exists than had it been nipped in the bud.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Posted by RogB

"The process is simply these commands. Client and processor are abulatory.

Processor: "Notice that (indicate and named thing/object/person, etc.)"
Client does so and indicates having done so.
Processor: "Tell me a fact about that (item)." Ack answer.
Processor: "Tell me an opinion about that (item)."
Ack answer . . . . .

Continue process till the usual wow! big wins, realizations from the client."

What a very very nice process !

And right out of Creation of Human Ability there is an ambulatory process I always ran on a Life Repair and that was :
" Notice something just for the fun of it "
Repetitive to EP. Also an amazing beauty !

Sometimes the auditor does realize objectives run both ways - that can be fun, too !

....

I'm not going to get into some people who are apparently having difficulty with their memory of who posted what in threads and then getting out of sorts with others about it. Grumpy old men ain't all that funny.

I strongly suspect any reader here can read my posts ( or posts by anybody ) and reach their own conclusions regarding the poster.
Some people like me. Some people don't like me.
That ain't news.
( The person I love the very most and loves me the most :calls me Captain Blunt )

Anyway, I've been somewhat chided a little by an extremely few others for not touting that " some of the tech works ".

And what is correct is that as I see that is a generality. You know, a generality, that thing that scientologists tell us is a very very bad thing to do and the telltale hallmark of a suppressive person.

But anyway in this " some of the tech works " or "some of the tech is workable ? I don't know if it is meant 5 % or 95% and I certainly don't know if Bill means 5%, Joe means 50%, and John means 95 %. But somehow I am supposed to be in agreement with some unspecified amount of the tech as "works" or "workable". Or? I am a "bad" person !

Am I being called a suppressive person on, OMG, a chat board? Oh, wow, you mean this goldenrod declare published by the church that I laughed at ( well proudly framed and display ) has been validated by a poster on a chat board ?
Oh my goodness gracious !

And the next thing that seems to be a generality to me in this " tech works" or "is workable thing" is nothiing specific is mentioned. Is it Self Analysis works but OT III does not work- or vice versa?

On the " lower grades " ARC Straightwire seems pretty good but does that mean I have to accept the way on grade 4 that ser facs are L & N'd for handles that area?


And "clear". OMG. the LRH defenition in DMSMH, some definitions after that or what the person felt they got out of it? All I'm being asked to agree with is there is the state of " clear " and not by any specific definition of "clear".

And so on through the grade chart with the generalities I've been asked to admit " some of the tech works ( or is workable )".
Red on white? Green on white? Blue on white? Tapes? Training films? Books? Well, some of it works !
How about which of the 75 million plus words of it work?

Come to find out if I don't agree with the generalities that I'm now called a " basher ".

I submit those who want to discuss the "tech" bring off specific points to discuss ( as MANY have done ) rather than make some wildly general proclamation and expect my agreement with it.

Same with Hubbard. Let's discuss specific things rather than his " golden aura" or him being an perceived as an " Operatating Thetan ". Rather than these generalities can his proponets get down to some specifcs?


I don't mind people using generalities, happens all the time but this business of getting on me bacause I don't agree with generalities posted by others, is, well, silly.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I'm the "someone named Voltaire".

I don't think I was roughed up badly. Sharone's been hurt by what has happened to her and is prone to lash out. She responded to me, I responded back, it was fine. The ad homs on that thread were mainly directed to Lakey and Terril, and as such, disgusted me.

I'm tired of seeing the attacks on Terril for being interested in and, yes, promoting Scn outside CofS. Just because some people don't like that ideology, doesn't mean he's running a game or that they can know that. They, in fact, do NOT know that, because it simply isn't true.

I also really disagreed with the amateur psychoanalysis pushed on Lakey.

I mainly got a direct and candid reply from Sharone which wasn't a problem for me at all. But the way that she and a couple others have treated Terril and Lakey- that's the real clusterfuck in that thread.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

<snip>

All those times were just when my buttons were pushed so hard that my case restimulated out of control and I acted inappropriately.

<snip>

... petty squabbles between posters. ...

<snip>

I took on a large task on the Sharone thread.

<snip>

... THIS ACTIVITY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO EMMA. ..

<snip>

Lakey

Thank you for telling me that.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

FoTi - Bashing is just a term for disagreement where not only a person's viewpoints or ideas are disagreed with but the person himself or herself is subjected to personal attack. That is the way I use the term, but I have never looked it up. Here is a dictionary definition.

[bash-ing] Show IPA

India Pale Ale Profile
By Bryce Eddings, About.com Guide

History:

In the early 1700s Britain had a problem. Troops and British citizens living in India as part of the colonial rule did not have access to good British ale and any attempts to ship the malt British ales to them resulted in spoilage. India Pale Ale, or IPA, was the solution. The generous amount of hops in this brew protected it from the heat and motion of the British sailing ships of the day. Read the full story of this fascinating chapter in brewing history here.
Style Point:

IPA could have faded into history when the British occupation of India ended. But a fateful shipwreck firmly established IPA as its own style rather than a sub-style specialty brew. In 1827 a ship leaving London wrecked and damaged some of the casks of IPA on board. The casks were sold there in England and the unusually hoppy ale was a big hit. Soon the new brew was in demand and a new style
Ingredients:

Lots of pale ale and a bit of crystal malt give this styles enough malt sweetness to stand up to the demanding hops. Lots of good English hops are traditionally used but some American breweries use local hops varieties like Cascade to give it a citrusy wang.
Tasting Notes:

It will have a moderate, persisting head. The body will be golden to amber. A good IPA will have a pleasantly hoppy aroma. The flavor should be equally hoppy with plenty of balancing malty sweetness.
Food Pairing:

The overwhelming hops flavor of this brew make it a tough beer to pair foods with. Almost any sort of spicing clashes with the hoppy character. Roasted meats can work with a subtle barbecue sauce. Mostly, I prefer this beer alone so I can savor the hops.


–noun
1. the act of beating, whipping, or thrashing: a series of unsolved bashings and robberies.
2. a decisive defeat: We gave the visiting team a good bashing.
3. (used in combination)
a. unprovoked physical assaults against members of a specified group: gay-bashing.
b. verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation: feminist-bashing; China-bashing

The only definition that has anything to do with internet posting seems to be the last one (in blue). That one does not go far enough. I think that what separates bashing from a valid critique is when a personal attack is made on a person rather than on what that person says.

My own personal policy is never to bash. Probably in busts of anger, I have lost my cool and bashed on several occasions. I don't remember specific instances of doing this but I know that I have done it. All those times were just when my buttons were pushed so hard that my case restimulated out of control and I acted inappropriately.

When a person gets bashed by one or more ESMB members, I believe that is just normal Message Board SOP. The person who is being bashed should be able to defend their own position and not bring in Emma. I am sure that she has more important things to do than to clean up petty squabbles between posters. It would have to be something really major, such as using racial or religious slurs against someone before I would bring in Emma. So far, on ESMB, I have never encountered anything of this nature.

I can't recall ever bashing Toady. He was picking apart every sentence of every post I was writing. I tried politely to get him to stop but that encouraged him to press on with more determination. Finally I put him on ignore which totally handled the problem. Now I have cancelled his ignore.

I took on a large task on the Sharone thread. There are two main factions on that thread. One faction consists of Candy, Terril, Leon, MAB and myself and the other faction, much larger, consists of Helluva, Veda, Alanzo, Toady, Sharone, Markus, Gottabrain, ItoldyouIwastrouble, Infine, Mr. Nobody,DB and others.

The only person in the Helluva faction who attempted to see the other side of the picture was Gottabrain. Markus may also be included to a smaller degree.

The extremely unusual thing about this thread was that Candy's videos were copied from another source by Sharone without Candy's knowledge or permission. THIS ACTIVITY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO EMMA. Had Candy done so, the thread might have been closed down right away.

The other real oddity about this is that Sharone posted them without comment! That turned out to be the key to all that developed!!

Had Sharone posted them without Candy's knowledge or permission and then bashed Candy, Candy probably would have notified EMMA and had the thread closed down.

Candy took Sharone's "no comment" to signify that he liked the tapes so he was doing Candy a favor by promoting them. That is why the thread was allowed to go forward without a complaint being filed.

Once the hostilities started between the two factions, I wanted to see if there was any way to establish common ground and a truce between the two groups. Terril, Mark Baker and Leon also made efforts in this direction. I thought that Mark's efforts were the most effective of all of us. He used a keen eye, lots of knowledge and his own brand of logic to reveal some incredibly subtle insights which I thought might find common ground with the other side. Unfortunately, nothing positive happened with Mark's posts. Terril had a brilliant exchange with Veda. Veda opened up a little more than usual but the final outcome was no improvement in relationships between the two factions. Ditto for Leon's efforts.

Post Mortem - The thread is still running hot and heavy, Vinaire just showed up there today to make a short post. I have decided to drop out of the debate, for now, at least.

Should Candy have stopped the thread at the beginning and avoided all of these hostilities. My opinion is "no". This thread provided much information and was entertaining and stimulating. A lot of deep seated beliefs as well as hostilities were brought to the surface. In summation, it is probably better that the thread now exists than had it been nipped in the bud.
Lakey

On several threads I've received some solid bashing. Most recently, on the Ethier thread(s), I served some solid bashes. It is part of the landscape.It gives us all badly needed feedback on our rational processes.

It isn't like at a Dodger / Giant game at Chavez Ravine where a Giant fan was beaten into a coma by 2 Dodger fans and witnessed by a hundred others, who remain silent.

It seems to me that on this board (ESMB), alliances are formed based on personal philosophy. AnonyMary has given me heavy criticism and questioning and, on the other side, backed me up and / or been my ally. Her integrity and ability to research and think are second to none. Ditto for Veda.

As a laissez-faire capitalist, I'm all for this idea marketplace.

 

[RogerB]

Oh, Toady, your post #11826: you are being unkind . . .

Expecting people to actually think, and do the work to post lucidly . . . and worse! ON A SUNDAY MORNING!

You know it is much easier to simply REACT and to blurt out whatever sparks and fizzes instead of THINKING! Why are you trying to make them be sensible like you? :confused2: Why are you so unkind to them?

Knockitoff! You trying to cause short-circuits in peoples' heads?

I'm going for more coffee before I get too irritable or laugh myself silly.

R

 

[lkwdblds]

Thank you for your excellent and accurate post!

I'm the "someone named Voltaire".

I don't think I was roughed up badly. Sharone's been hurt by what has happened to her and is prone to lash out. She responded to me, I responded back, it was fine. The ad homs on that thread were mainly directed to Lakey and Terril, and as such, disgusted me.

I'm tired of seeing the attacks on Terril for being interested in and, yes, promoting Scn outside CofS. Just because some people don't like that ideology, doesn't mean he's running a game or that they can know that. They, in fact, do NOT know that, because it simply isn't true.

I also really disagreed with the amateur psychoanalysis pushed on Lakey.

I mainly got a direct and candid reply from Sharone which wasn't a problem for me at all. But the way that she and a couple others have treated Terril and Lakey- that's the real clusterfuck in that thread.

Fantastic post! Yes, Sharone has been severely hurt. So has Markus. These are two very fine people. I have compassion for them and if they lash out a bit they have good reason to do so. Making them wrong for doing so is not a proper response by any means.

I actually got into so very productive dialogue with Markus and of course Gottabrain. ItoldyouIwastrouble may also be added to that list.

VC, I can't tell you how much i appreciate your repudiation of the attacks on Terril and Olsa's amateurish psychanalysis of me. She suggests I probably have a heavy drug case but my total street drug history is very short. I smoked 3 joints of marijuana in 1969, one year before joining Scn and 1 joint in 1974, just after leaving the S.O. and returning home. These instances all occured at parties I attended where I accepted joints offered by others.

The rest of Olska's analysis is equally far afield except for her suggesting an addiction to posting on the internet. There may be an element of truth there. The rest of the analysis is pretty close to 180 degrees wrong.

Your clarity and objectivity unfortunately seems to be rare on Sharone's thread. I commend you for it and ask you for more posts. Thank you for coming to this thread to clear things up.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

"But, if these incidents are addressed and successfully (by whatever technique) "eliminated," reduced or "erased" . . . . what has happened??

The truth of the incident or event has not been lost no."

Rodger you bring up what for me has long been something, I think, is worthy of consideration.

It would seem to me that most scientoologists when run on Dianetics or NED very strongly feel the "incident" is erased from their track and no longer do they have anything to do with it - or it with them.

And, oddly, I found that attitude popular with scientoology processes although they were supposed to be key outs, not "erasure". (I'm going to skip all the complexity and stickness of blowing stuff on "OT" levels ).

Anyway, this has tended to strike me as an odd sort of denial of ones self when a person is busily erasing what has been most influential on them.

Perhaps you have given this some thought to this oddiity or maybe see I jumped to a silly conclusion.

 

[RogerB]

"But, if these incidents are addressed and successfully (by whatever technique) "eliminated," reduced or "erased" . . . . what has happened??

The truth of the incident or event has not been lost no."

Rodger you bring up what for me has long been something, I think, is worthy of consideration.

It would seem to me that most scientoologists when run on Dianetics or NED very strongly feel the "incident" is erased from their track and no longer do they have anything to do with it - or it with them.

And, oddly, I found that attitude popular with scientoology processes although they were supposed to be key outs, not "erasure". (I'm going to skip all the complexity and stickness of blowing stuff on "OT" levels ).

Anyway, this has tended to strike me as an odd sort of denial of ones self when a person is busily erasing what has been most influential on them.

Perhaps you have given this some thought to this oddiity or maybe see I jumped to a silly conclusion.

Toady,

No worries, mate. You observed the obvious it's the rhetoric in the Cof$ that is out of sorts. The whole proposition of "erasure" and of "getting rid" is misconstrued.

CHANGE occurs, and often, beneficial change occurs . . . . but actual "erasure" or truly, fully getting rid of? No.

I speak here in spiritual terms . . . not physical, for it is true the tech has achieved the getting rid of physical bodily aches/pains/conditions on occasion.

But right now, I'm about to record a show, so will be off.

This, however is a big, vital and valuable subject; and one I should address on my other thread dealing with advances in tech.

In the interim, however, I'm sure the other clever folks with inquiring minds will chime in on this issue . . . it is one that is really worthwhile coming to a full understanding of.

Rog

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Oh, Toady, your post #11826: you are being unkind . . .

Expecting people to actually think, and do the work to post lucidly . . . and worse! ON A SUNDAY MORNING!

You know it is much easier to simply REACT and to blurt out whatever sparks and fizzes instead of THINKING! Why are you trying to make them be sensible like you? :confused2: Why are you so unkind to them?

Knockitoff! You trying to cause short-circuits in peoples' heads?

I'm going for more coffee before I get too irritable or laugh myself silly.

R

Ok. I respect your opinion of these matters.

I'll go back to being my usual soft spoken Herman Milktoast self.

Coffee is far to harsh for my delicate sensibilities so my preference for a morning beverage will be a mild, but pleasing, tea.

The lady of the house will prepare scones with dried cherries, possibly dried cranberries or orange or lemon zest or - God Forbid! - dark choclate chip.

Which may I present as your preference ?

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Toady,

No worries, mate. You observed the obvious it's the rhetoric in the Cof$ that is out of sorts. The whole proposition of "erasure" and of "getting rid" is misconstrued.

CHANGE occurs, and often, beneficial change occurs . . . . but actual "erasure" or truly, fully getting rid of? No.

I speak here in spiritual terms . . . not physical, for it is true the tech has achieved the getting rid of physical bodily aches/pains/conditions on occasion.

But right now, I'm about to record a show, so will be off.

This, however is a big, vital and valuable subject; and one I should address on my other thread dealing with advances in tech.

In the interim, however, I'm sure the other clever folks with inquiring minds will chime in on this issue . . . it is one that is really worthwhile coming to a full understanding of.

Rog

part of the "evil," as I see it, of Scientology culture, is the wacko tendency to Opp Term, ie. Get rid of all the bad, etc.

I've audited for forty plus years. I audit currently. I do not say to someone, "We'll get rid of that."

I focus more upon the PC (Processing Client ) OWNING their life, their flow one experiences, their flow two actions, etc.

Life is a game. Both sides (as sci ooks at it) or the full rainbow should be able to be experienced, caused, and observed with appropriate actions taken.

Call it pan determinism or anything, I don't give a flying fuck. Ownership of one's life in co-creation with others is what I am about. It is what I work with others to accomplish. This leads to teamwork, and working with others to enjoy and play the games of life.

I think my family exemplifies what I stand for.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Toady,

No worries, mate. You observed the obvious it's the rhetoric in the Cof$ that is out of sorts. The whole proposition of "erasure" and of "getting rid" is misconstrued.

CHANGE occurs, and often, beneficial change occurs . . . . but actual "erasure" or truly, fully getting rid of? No.

I speak here in spiritual terms . . . not physical, for it is true the tech has achieved the getting rid of physical bodily aches/pains/conditions on occasion.

But right now, I'm about to record a show, so will be off.

This, however is a big, vital and valuable subject; and one I should address on my other thread dealing with advances in tech.

In the interim, however, I'm sure the other clever folks with inquiring minds will chime in on this issue . . . it is one that is really worthwhile coming to a full understanding of.

Rog

I so agree with you and look forward to your comments.

Another area I've never seen anyone ever have much to say about over one sentence is the " springboard case ".

I scratched my head over that one for a long time but gave it some thoughts in passing.

The springboard case, true to form, got hundreds - if not thousands -of hours of auditing... all the way through, say, OT V - and frequently the L's but got absolutely nowhere case wise. Nothing would bite.

It never resolved for me the difference in a 'springboard case' and a 'no case gain' case.

Any thoughts on that ?

And the point you made of spiritual is one thing and physical is another is, IMHO, a very very major point that has long bern severely misunderstood.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

part of the "evil," as I see it, of Scientology culture, is the wacko tendency to Opp Term, ie. Get rid of all the bad, etc.

I've audited for forty plus years. I audit currently. I do not say to someone, "We'll get rid of that."

I focus more upon the PC (Processing Client ) OWNING their life, their flow one experiences, their flow two actions, etc.

Life is a game. Both sides (as sci ooks at it) or the full rainbow should be able to be experienced, caused, and observed with appropriate actions taken.

Call it pan determinism or anything, I don't give a flying fuck. Ownership of one's life in co-creation with others is what I am about. It is what I work with others to accomplish. This leads to teamwork, and working with others to enjoy and play the games of life.

I think my family exemplifies what I stand for.

Beautiful !

 

[lkwdblds]

Very nice Carmelo!!

part of the "evil," as I see it, of Scientology culture, is the wacko tendency to Opp Term, ie. Get rid of all the bad, etc.

I've audited for forty plus years. I audit currently. I do not say to someone, "We'll get rid of that."

I focus more upon the PC (Processing Client ) OWNING their life, their flow one experiences, their flow two actions, etc.

Life is a game. Both sides (as sci ooks at it) or the full rainbow should be able to be experienced, caused, and observed with appropriate actions taken.

Call it pan determinism or anything, I don't give a flying fuck. Ownership of one's life in co-creation with others is what I am about. It is what I work with others to accomplish. This leads to teamwork, and working with others to enjoy and play the games of life.

I think my family exemplifies what I stand for.

Thanks Carmelo. Your posts take one's mind off of the nit picky stuff and on to the big picture. Also, I notice that you are respected on the Sharone thread and did not get involved in the hostiities going on there. You are doing a lot of things right. People, including myself (maybe especially myself), need to look at what you are doing and take a page from your book

One thing which I see right away is that you never make anyone wrong. Another is that you are always there to offer help and give stability to a situation. Well that is two pages, of your book. I hope I can assimilate more. Thanks for being such a rock of stability and for always being there!
Lakey

 

[SweetnessandLight]

It's a lovely day... go out and enjoy it!

Oh joy! More...





...meep!

Just trying to stay caught up with this and other threads. Really too busy to contribute much at present, except to say this:

After a certain point in a disagreement, after viewpoints have been fully aired and exchanged, no further gains are to be made by continuing the conversation, except to needlessly and senselessly prolong the argument, and by doing so, to make a fool of oneself.

After a certain point, it's best to quietly withdraw rather than continue in creating disharmony and ill will. Especially on ESMB, where a lot of people have been verbally abused by their seniors and their peers in Scientology, and are working on healing and recovery and personally regaining their sense of peace, safety, self-esteem and trust in their fellow humans.

After a certain point of endless verbal battle and put downs, nobody's right and everybody's wrong.

After a certain amount of disharmony...silence is golden. We all have our own various tolerances for divergence, randomness and disagreement.

Not everyone is willing or capable of seeing or accepting our individual points of view. Not everyone we like and want to like us will. Not everyone will agree with us, validate us or grant us our beingness.

That's just life.

Scientologists always seem to think that they can control everything and everybody, and moreover, that they should...

I perceive that many Exes, Indys and Freezoners seem to have quite a hangover from this behavior that persists... on attempting to exert control over others, to which I say:

Practice controlling yourself.

Being a Non, to encounter the solid concrete of that sense of overwhelming selfish arrogant entitlement on a regular basis makes me go...

...meep! :shock:

Life's too short to waste.

Time for me to go out and enjoy a lovely Spring day, enjoy the beautiful flowers and the wonderful birdsong and pull some weeds.

Bye guys! Hope you all have a lovely day!

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Thanks Carmelo. Your posts take one's mind off of the nit picky stuff and on to the big picture. Also, I notice that you are respected on the Sharone thread and did not get involved in the hostiities going on there. You are doing a lot of things right. People, including myself (maybe especially myself), need to look at what you are doing and take a page from your book

One thing which I see right away is that you never make anyone wrong. Another is that you are always there to offer help and give stability to a situation. Well that is two pages, of your book. I hope I can assimilate more. Thanks for being such a rock of stability and for always being there!
Lakey

Harvey / Quincy

WTF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYU6mSIF8ww