Ted (ted_crammer@hotmail.com) wrote:
>It is a general statement in hopes you would restudy what Hubbard has
>written on the anger case. But I have specific observations. How about, 
>that you need auditing on the "black hole" or perhaps any auditing at 
>all? I suspect the process you need is not mental, it is physical.

    Yes I know.

    And yes I reject your analysis 100 percent.

>Or that you are a Black V. But you have lucid dreams. You have redefined 
>Hub Tech to paint yourself into a very tight corner. 

     I am just reporting the facts.  A being needs to be able to make
mockups, for practical and emotional reasons.  When daytime mockup
activity is thwarted, then eventually the need and energy comes out in

     And if dreaming is thwarted, the being finally goes nuts.

>Refer to one of your rants on Women or God. 
>Do you really believe 
>everything you write? 

     What in specific?  
     That duties and rights must balance, and that as long as men are
drafted and women are not, then women do not have the right to vote?

     That the idea that men have something wrong with them that women
don't is something that women have wrong with them that men don't?

     That women are jealous of men to a point of refusing to operate
in men what men need to be operated in order to survive as men?


     That anyone who can be raped, should be then shot?
     Well, I get its point.
     That children are seeking mastery of total irresponsibliity,
women are seeking mastery of defense, men are seeking mastery of
offense and Gods are seeking mastery of total responsibility?  Yes,
but in this case its not a body thing, but a phase of development
thing.  The sex of the body is not always aligned with the phase of
the being in it.
     Adore is its own subject separate from me, I am its speaker, and
mostly I tend to have affinity for its propositions, but many of them
are part of 'para-Adore', meaning the jury is still out on them.  Many
things Adore says are presented as generalitzations which nonetheless
clearly have exceptions.

     In my words Adore is a baby-phase religion, brought up by
monsters for mothers.  In your words, Adore has an anger case.
     You argue with Carol as if she is an idiot just 
>placed on Earth to piss you off. She caught hell recently because 1) 
>she's a woman and 2), y'all were talking about God. 

     Carol is an idiot as far as I can tell, sorry, anyone who
dismisses logic as the ethics of language and engages in illogical
discussion is for the birds and up to no good.

     "Syllogisms never did much for me."
     "All that comes from God is good.
      Man came from God.
      Man is not all good."

     Anyone can preach that God is good and evil comes from man, or
mistake.  Irresponsibility is not the hard path.

>Why is it I can understand what she has to say and you opp-term it with 
>ad hominem? Is your understanding of God so great that only you 
>understand?  LOL

     How have I ever opp termed Carol with ad hominem?  I call her as
I see her, and I explain why carefully and in great detail.

     I have never said she was wrong because she was a woman, did
drugs or what a drunk.

>Illnesses belong to the valence. There's nothing wrong with the thetan 
>as Static. Homer is a valence package. Dig it and don't lose it.

     I seem to be a problem to you.

     Perhaps there is more you haven't said to me about me that
you would like me to know.


Thu Sep  7 22:42:16 EDT 2006