Have I been the dark? Tell me more about this documentary and the name of it. It sounds like something I'd like to watch.
Tony, did you track anything new down about Sara? If you read the interviews and memoirs of the members of Parsons's OTO lodge, she was quite a piece of work, even for a group of Satanists in California.
Did she settle down
in later years and repudiate all the weirdness she was into with Jack and Ron, or did she keep that up on the down low? She was indeed a victim of Ron, but the fact that she was practicing magik with Parsons based on Crowley's crap - and considered a shit-stirrer by that very, very strange crowd - often gets overlooked due to the madness Ron visited on her life.
Heh heh. Eight months later. That's rich.
Oh, even the oldtimers are going to find a lot of new nuggets that I managed to track down. I hope you enjoy them.
That "piece of work," to whom you refer, befriended Paulette Cooper over 40 years ago, and I doubt if Paulette shares your harsh assessment of her.
Yes, she settled down and raised a beautiful family.
The old men of the O.T.O. didn't like Sara, who was seen as a disruptive influence. She was a free spirit.
Sara wasn't even a teenager when her sister married Jack Parsons, and barely 16 when she was invited to join the O.T.O. Sara passed away in 1997 and her personal spiritual views, Udarnik, are none of your business.
Sorry, Udarnik, but I just find your language and your tone offensive.
_________
Old timer John Sanborn, who knew Sara in 1950 and 1951, explained during a 1986 interview:"Sara was a lovely woman. She was intelligent. She was quite young. I suppose she was around 24, and Hubbard was around 40. She had an aristocratic look..."
________
Alva Rogers, who - along with other artists and bohemians - lived at Jack Parsons' large house, during the time Sara was there, had this to say in a 1960s fanzine:"She was young, blonde, and very attractive, full of joie de vivre, thoughtful, humorous, generous."
But this thread is not about Sara, it's about Paulette Cooper and the Destructive Cult, and its cult leader, that decided to "manufacture enough threat" to "terminately handle" her, and it's about the great news that a book about her, and honoring her, is soon to be published.
AGREED In red above . . . I find Urdanik to specialize in nasty destructive inventions about people he has never met to be his forté.
His rant on Alan was his latest . . . to be noted is that U joined ESMB at least 3 years after Alan died, certainly had never met the man nor read his works . . . .
Yet, he dreamed up such vitriol about the man . . .
Frankly, I'm surprised the mods didn't handle him and his shit.
So the question becomes, how come Urdanik is so active in doing destroys on decent people who either spread the truth about Hubbard's shit and nastiness or who as ex-$cn are getting on with life and winning at it (a la Keith Mumby).
What's the agenda . . . whose interests is Urdanik serving knowingly or unknowingly.
R
Gee, out of thousands of posts he only writes a couple based upon an an opinion formed from misinformation or lack of information and you expect us to discard all his other contributions here ( which are many and good ones) in favor of believing he has an agenda that may serve other interests?
If you though his posts were in violation of board rules, report them. If they weren't then the wise thing to do would be to educate, not castigate. The rules say attack ideas, not members.
Announcement of Cessation of Hostilities - a Truce and Moratorium on Personal Attacks
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...orium-on-Personal-Attacks&p=867441#post867441
veda's post shows the better way to address conflicts with another's posts.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...k-drops-in-May&p=994434&viewfull=1#post994434
Gee, out of thousands of posts he only writes a couple based upon an an opinion formed from misinformation or lack of information and you expect us to discard all his other contributions here ( which are many and good ones) in favor of believing he has an agenda that may serve other interests?
If you thought his posts were in violation of board rules, report them. If they weren't then the wise thing to do would be to educate, not castigate. The rules say attack ideas, not members.
Announcement of Cessation of Hostilities - a Truce and Moratorium on Personal Attacks
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...orium-on-Personal-Attacks&p=867441#post867441
veda's post shows the better way to address conflicts with another's posts.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...k-drops-in-May&p=994434&viewfull=1#post994434
Ditto here.
On the OP subject, looking forward to the book.
I'm with Operating DB here too. What is this HBO story we're talking about here?
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-Bombshell-Scientology-Film-From-Oscar-WinnerI'm with Operating DB here too. What is this HBO story we're talking about here?
Gee, out of thousands of posts he only writes a couple based upon an an opinion formed from misinformation or lack of information and you expect us to discard all his other contributions here ( which are many and good ones) in favor of believing he has an agenda that may serve other interests?
If you thought his posts were in violation of board rules, report them. If they weren't then the wise thing to do would be to educate, not castigate. The rules say attack ideas, not members.
Announcement of Cessation of Hostilities - a Truce and Moratorium on Personal Attacks
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...orium-on-Personal-Attacks&p=867441#post867441
veda's post shows the better way to address conflicts with another's posts.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...k-drops-in-May&p=994434&viewfull=1#post994434
AnonyMary, thanks for the vote of confidence, but quite frankly I don't see any of the above as a personal attack. Certainly I don't see my missive on Alan Walter as a personal attack, and I find it amusing that I presented the evidence as to why I might have some reservations about Alan - many of which are the same reservations expressed by the same people about the same kind of behavior from Marty - and I get no substantive refutation of my opinion, only ad hominems and vague character witnessing.
This is a hot button for some people, and you know what? Loyalty to a friend is something the Co$ discourages, and it shows nobility on the part of people who rush to do so. That they may be doing so in defense of someone who may not totally deserve that loyalty is something for outsiders to legitimately point out, but those outsiders should not expect tea and crumpets for their trouble. I developed a thick skin in my short academic and long business career, and I don't mind taking a shot from people who disagree with me, even if I think their reasoning is unfounded. It's why this is a message board and not an echo chamber.
I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged. I, of
With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.
Cool.
Will look forward to that thread. It occurred to me that you might want to make the thread's title a famous Latin expression:
Set postquam dixisti de freak guru non quidem ex mojo.
Those words are just as true today as they were when first spoken by the Roman philosopher Culticula in AD 179. You needn't be concerned about translating it into English because it is a self-evident truth.
Best!
hh
(translation): "People freak out when you mention their guru doesn't really have any mojo"
AnonyMary, thanks for the vote of confidence, but quite frankly I don't see any of the above as a personal attack. Certainly I don't see my missive on Alan Walter as a personal attack, and I find it amusing that I presented the evidence as to why I might have some reservations about Alan - many of which are the same reservations expressed by the same people about the same kind of behavior from Marty - and I get no substantive refutation of my opinion, only ad hominems and vague character witnessing.
This is a hot button for some people, and you know what? Loyalty to a friend is something the Co$ discourages, and it shows nobility on the part of people who rush to do so. That they may be doing so in defense of someone who may not totally deserve that loyalty is something for outsiders to legitimately point out, but those outsiders should not expect tea and crumpets for their trouble. I developed a thick skin in my short academic and long business career, and I don't mind taking a shot from people who disagree with me, even if I think their reasoning is unfounded. It's why this is a message board and not an echo chamber.
I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged.
With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.
Cool.
Will look forward to that thread. It occurred to me that you might want to make the thread's title a famous Latin expression:
Set postquam dixisti de freak guru non quidem ex mojo.
Those words are just as true today as they were when first spoken by the Roman philosopher Culticula in AD 179. You needn't be concerned about explaining or translating it into English, because (like the Scn axioms) it is a self-evident truth.
Best!
hh
(translation): "People freak out when you mention their guru doesn't really have any mojo"
Yes, she settled down and raised a beautiful family.
The old men of the O.T.O. didn't like Sara, who was seen as a disruptive influence. She was a free spirit.
Sara wasn't even a teenager when her sister married Jack Parsons, and barely 16 when she was invited to join the O.T.O. Sara passed away in 1997
_________
Old timer John Sanborn, who knew Sara in 1950 and 1951, explained during a 1986 interview:"Sara was a lovely woman. She was intelligent. She was quite young. I suppose she was around 24, and Hubbard was around 40. She had an aristocratic look..."
________
Alva Rogers, who - along with other artists and bohemians - lived at Jack Parsons' large house, during the time Sara was there, had this to say in a 1960s fanzine:"She was young, blonde, and very attractive, full of joie de vivre, thoughtful, humorous, generous."
But this thread is not about Sara, it's about Paulette Cooper and the Destructive Cult, and its cult leader, that decided to "manufacture enough threat" to "terminately handle" her, and it's about the great news that a book about her, and honoring her, is soon to be published.
I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged.
With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.
In that short blurb "the Church" is used eight times.
It's great that Paulette Cooper finally has a book - and hopefully a movie! - dedicated solely to her, but is it really necessary to so frequently reaffirm the fraudulent "religious" identity of corporate Scientology?
Simply calling it "the Church," and with such matter of fact frequency, will make some people back away from the topic, as they are disinclined to enter into a conflict between someone and a "Church."
(Believe it or not, most people are not organized-religion-despising-atheists, thus the utility of the "religion angle.")
In any event, it should be interesting to see what new information is brought to light, and it's wonderful to see Paulette Cooper getting the recognition she deserves.
This has the potential to be an extremely poignant and powerful book.[/QUOTE
I think that seeing the word "Scientology" will interest potential buyers more than the word "Church".