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

[olska]

...
[Olska] 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.
...
Lakey

Hmmm -- I suggested no such thing, don't know how you got that idea.

Interesting that you would choose to discuss my post HERE instead of on the thread (the Candy Swanson thread) where I made the post. Since I seldom read and almost never post on this thread (I've made 13 posts out of nearly 12,000 on this thread, about one-tenth of one percent) I would not have seen this except that "someone" pointed it out to me.

Thank you, "someone!"

If you have more to say about it, I'll be checking that other thread after I've finished digging the holes and planting the five gorgeous new fruit trees that arrived by UPS on Friday.

Cya.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Olska,
Your post that seems to be being objected to - and imaginary things attributed to - was, IMHO, one of the most accurate posts I have ever seen.

I'm no idea what ( well I'm not going to post ) what is currently going on with that poster but I've decided to just give that one a ' Thank you for telling me that " and letting it dance alone until its music stops.

'jus sayin'

Oh, I wonder if being cross posts are now being routinely made between this Apollo '73 thread and the Candy Swanson about Hubbard thread that the time has come to merge them - someone seems to be wanting them merged.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

For whoever needs it :

 

[FoTi]

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

Yep, I read that. No problem. No disagreement. That person said how they feel and it's quite understandable.

 

[FoTi]

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

Candy's videos were on Youtube. I never saw anywhere that someone had to get the person's permission who created the video to copy and paste it or post it anywhere else. When people post videos on Youtube, it's like posting it in Times Square. It's open for public debate. Personally, I got kind of bored with the thread and quit following it.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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. ...

Not true. I clarified this point most recently in post #11795 as I have before when Roger's participation at the convention was ambiguously referred to by others.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Harvey / Quincy

WTF?

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

I watched the whole video clip. I see that it was released in 1950. Maybe LRH watched that and used it as a model of how a session could be run (just kidding). Other than that, I really don't know what to make of it.
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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

Mark A. Baker

 

[RogerB]

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 ?

The Americans have polluted me with coffee I'm now off tea . . . . tho my Sweet Virginia is trying to get me back to the healthy green tea variety. I'm kicking and screaming on that one . . . it tastes like shit, you know? (to quote that internationally known, famous to all, other Ozzie, Crocodile Dundee )

I find my coffee gives me that early morning boost that keeps me civil. Without it I can frazzle, and it also on occasion helps unsettling encounters during the day. Better than booze and nicotine, no?

Tho for sophisticated genteels, tea is a good way to go

R

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Not true. I clarified this point most recently in post #11795 as I have before when Roger's participation at the convention was ambiguously referred to by others.


Mark A. Baker

Mark, that was not directed at you.

If I had a bone to pick with you ( and I don't ) you'd know it.

Someone represented to me in a post the role of Rodger at that convention very differently than he described it. It was that simple.

Le Toady

 

[lkwdblds]

Not true. I clarified this point most recently in post #11795 as I have before when Roger's participation at the convention was ambiguously referred to by others.


Mark A. Baker

One's participation, now matter how presented, does offer some degree of support for an organization. A well known ex with name recognition can be promoted as being their keynote speaker and likely more people will attend and more income will be generated. For many of the people hearing about the event, just the linkage of the person's name with the group, the Freezone, will register in their minds as a positive. As time passes, they will remember that so and so, a well known ex spoke there. Obviously, the Freezone would not invite a keynote speaker who is openly hostel to their organization so if one does not do any research on this topic, they are likely to infer that the speaker supports the group where he spoke.

BTW, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with any of this. The Freezone hired Roger. Roger made his positions known and delivered excellent speeches and did not Rubber Stamp the Freezone. It is all very forthright and positive. My only point is that by agreeing to be a speaker for a group, one is promoting that group to some extent just by signing on. The group does benefit from that person's participation.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

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

Olska is suggesting you have an addiction......posting on the internet syndrome?

Maybe Olska has ...... analysis syndrome.

Olska's just trying to get your goat.

Or did Olska really post this about you? I didn't read Olska's post.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Olska is suggesting you have an addiction......posting on the internet syndrome?

Maybe Olska has ...... analysis syndrome.

Olska's just trying to get your goat.

FoTi,

OK

Not Fair !

You just made me PIMP

Now I have to go change.

Damn it !

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mark, that was not directed at you.

If I had a bone to pick with you ( and I don't ) you'd know it.

Someone represented to me in a post the role of Rodger at that convention very differently than he described it. It was that simple.

Le Toady

I know. That is why I clarified the point in my follow up.

Roger's participation was the highlight of the convention, a convention which was arguably the most successful one to date. He even enjoyed himself catching up with a few old friends. Besides, as knowledgeable and insightful as Roger proves to be on this thread, he's even more fun to hang out with in person.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The Americans have polluted me with coffee I'm now off tea . . . . tho my Sweet Virginia is trying to get me back to the healthy green tea variety. I'm kicking and screaming on that one . . . it tastes like shit, you know? ...

Try a nice Lung Ching or Gunpowder variety.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Excellent post!

Just to clarify the point, Roger spoke at the convention at my request and at the invitation of the convention organizer. The convention was billed as 'Freezone & Friends' and was not limited to professed members of the freezone. The topic of Roger's talk were the key aspects of tech he saw as missing from Hubbard's development of 'standard tech'. His talk was highly illuminating and produced a lot of interest & insight among the participants.


Mark A. Baker

I went back and read your post #11795. I had somehow missed this one. Yes, it is excellent, very good information.

Roger himself just clarified that as well, just a few posts back. I am going to go back to that and do a paste and copy. I'll be right back.

Part of Roger's earlier post to Terril shown in blue
Yes my Dear T,

While it may offend that I put down $cn tech, if you note carefully, my posts of such are most always posts that elucidate its errors or incompleteness and further expound on corrections thereto.

My action isn't just being derogatory of the tech, that is a misrepresentation of the action, it is a correcting of it.

You seem to have missed that nuance. If one is to correct something, one must point out its error or inadequacy. And also the likely reason for that error and/or inadequacy . . . and typically those errors and inadequacies have been the result of Hubbard's deceitful agenda; his shoddy, inept "research" methods, and his penchant for the impressive "razzle-dazzle" to impress rather than an honest effort to find the truths that would benefit his fellows.

LRH isn't the only one Alan and I learned things from studying. There have been many more. But it happens he was the only one with a dishonest, deceitful agenda that has resulted in destructive harm to many.

Indeed, as Alan said to me once: Well, we did learn what was not right from him!

On the other hand, you seem to have missed or occluded my comments on where I have seen items of $cn tech have validity, workability and to have myself benefited from its use and benefited others with it. Indeed, my very first post on ESMB was one.

Indeed, Roger did make his position very clear and did an outstanding and thorough job of doing that. There can be know doubt where he stands.

Still I believe that the upper body of this post is valid.

Lakey

 

[FoTi]

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

My stuff, what was addressed did seem to erase. It's gone, I don't even know what it was and it hasn't ever come back again, in 37 years. But in blowing the charge, I did not retain the memory, but without the harmful charge, as LRH said it would be. Everything left and there ain't no memory there about anything. It seemed to me like it totally as-ised, just like it was supposed to. If it didn't erase or as-is, where did it go?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... My only point is that by agreeing to be a speaker for a group, one is promoting that group to some extent just by signing on. The group does benefit from that person's participation.
Lakey

Not necessarily true, Lakey. One could as well argue, and perhaps with better reason, that in some cases the agreement to address a group is for the purpose of correcting obvious outpoints in the group as it is currently constituted. Not so much an 'endorsement' of the group as it is as it might be an attempt at 'redress' of present mispractice.

Of course, I certainly don't intend to put words in Roger's mouth as to exactly why he originally agreed to address the convention. I am merely pointing out that your conclusion is not necessarily a correct one.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Auditor's Toad]

I know. That is why I clarified the point in my follow up.

Roger's participation was the highlight of the convention, a convention which was arguably the most successful one to date. He even enjoyed himself catching up with a few old friends. Besides, as knowledgeable and insightful as Roger proves to be on this thread, he's even more fun to hang out with in person.


Mark A. Baker

Rodger is one of the people I'd like one day to be able to sit down and have a chat with as he seems like one of those rare people I'd treasure be able to say " I got to know him !".

Unfortunately, there is someone who seems very intent on trying to drive a wedge of some kind or another between me and Rodger by posting some false data.

I'm trying to keep the facts in line without fanning that persons fires.

 

[FoTi]

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.

How could someone get all the way to OTV and do the L's without any case gain? How would they ever get advanced to those levels without making the gain on each level getting there? I don't understand. :confused2: