Apology, joke, etc...
The_Canuck
apology afterwards were totally tequila induced. Nevertheless, I was curious
to see how everyone would respond to my drunken ranting and it was quite
positive. I appreciate that. It is nice to see you guys didn't stomp all
over my comments but instead held a decent conversation. I had a really long
day yesterday and ended up hitting the local bar which led to chattin with a
girl that decided shots of tequila rose would be a good idea. (she bought!).
So I partied for a while then got home and logged on the newsgroup. There
was Roberts comments which in my drunken stupor I took quite personally and
was ready to kick some ass! lol Needless to say this morning when I woke I
was a bit concerned about exactly what it was that I said and how it was
taken. As I mentioned above its nice to see things didn't get as out of
hand as I thought may happen (worst case). So, with that I would like to say
it is a pleasure to communicate with you all and I will try to keep my bar
hopping down to a minimum...or not...either way I will attempt to remain
rational when I post. later...
Gene
C of A
The_Canuck wrote:
>
> Just want tosay something here. My post regarding Robert D's joke and my
> apology afterwards were totally tequila induced. Nevertheless, I was curious
> to see how everyone would respond to my drunken ranting and it was quite
> positive.
Four years ago,Robert made some comment about 'Wog groups' being total
Bank n' I laid into him on private mail about it as I was quite severely
inebriated at the time....I've been known to take the word 'Wog' as
personal abuse....and,if I rememberz,I'd had some racist abuse that day
so Robert just set me ranting.
I sat there,replying to his mails as they came in n' getting more
offensive until I finally passed out :-).
When I re-read that bloody Ducharme's repliez the following day,I
thought he had been quite rational about the whole thing.
Shit happenz :-)
>I appreciate that. It is nice to see you guys didn't stomp all
> over my comments but instead held a decent conversation.
I was a bit surprised at your post..but then I've been known to get
angry at people who bash my path.See my 'Tech Fightz' post.
And *NEVER* be afraid to stand up n' fight for what you know to be true
for you...even UCP :-)
>I had a really long
> day yesterday and ended up hitting the local bar which led to chattin with a
> girl that decided shots of tequila rose would be a good idea. (she bought!).
> So I partied for a while then got home and logged on the newsgroup. There
> was Roberts comments which in my drunken stupor I took quite personally and
> was ready to kick some ass!
Bin there,dun that :-)
>lol Needless to say this morning when I woke I
> was a bit concerned about exactly what it was that I said and how it was
> taken. As I mentioned above its nice to see things didn't get as out of
> hand as I thought may happen (worst case). So, with that I would like to say
> it is a pleasure to communicate with you all and I will try to keep my bar
> hopping down to a minimum...or not...either way I will attempt to remain
> rational when I post. later...
A poster attempting to remain rational?.Sheesh.You'r disqualified from
the 'Phil Scott' award of the month.
C of A
Ralph Hilton
msg <9bakj...@enews4.newsguy.com>, in alt.clearing.technology :
>Just want tosay something here. My post regarding Robert D's joke and my
>apology afterwards were totally tequila induced. Nevertheless, I was curious
>to see how everyone would respond to my drunken ranting and it was quite
>positive. I appreciate that. It is nice to see you guys didn't stomp all
>over my comments but instead held a decent conversation. I had a really long
>day yesterday and ended up hitting the local bar which led to chattin with a
>girl that decided shots of tequila rose would be a good idea. (she bought!).
>So I partied for a while then got home and logged on the newsgroup. There
>was Roberts comments which in my drunken stupor I took quite personally and
>was ready to kick some ass! lol Needless to say this morning when I woke I
>was a bit concerned about exactly what it was that I said and how it was
>taken. As I mentioned above its nice to see things didn't get as out of
>hand as I thought may happen (worst case). So, with that I would like to say
>it is a pleasure to communicate with you all and I will try to keep my bar
>hopping down to a minimum...or not...either way I will attempt to remain
>rational when I post. later...
>
>Gene
Not a great problem. I sometimes post some shit. I don't think I've yet
offered to create a new asshole for someone but it was at least innovative.
I can understand that while you are making good gains with UCP then it
offends you to hear detractions.
I can understand that you and others can make gains for hundreds of hours
with UCP.
Its not a bad process.
What I'd like you and others who communicate about your wins here to realize
is that many here have audited not a few hundred hours but well over 10,000.
So when some wise-ass like KP comes along who has a new process and has run
a hundred hours on it tries to tell us about our tone levels then we are not
impressed.
I've supervised co-audits where people would run CCH 1-4 for 150 hours and
then hit the EP. I could understand that until they hit the EP they might
think that CCH 1-4 was the universal solvent.
UCP could well run for a few hundred hours. Personally I looked at it and it
did not indicate for me.
I've run many thousands of hours solo and for me the process is too
simplistic.
I don't have any problem accepting that you made gains.
I do have an objection to KP trying to tell people way beyond his case level
to run a process that isn't applicable to their cases.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.fzint.org/rhilton
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
C-Meter: http://www.inquisitive-instruments.co.uk/
Homer Wilson Smith
>Four years ago,Robert made some comment about 'Wog groups' being total
>Bank n' I laid into him on private mail about it as I was quite severely
>inebriated at the time....I've been known to take the word 'Wog' as
>personal abuse....and,if I rememberz,I'd had some racist abuse that day
>so Robert just set me ranting.
Wearing a black body for a whole life time, is like wearing a
black dress at your own wedding. It says something about something,
can't quite figure out what yet...
:)
Homer
C of A
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> Wearing a black body for a whole life time, is like wearing a
> black dress at your own wedding. It says something about something,
> can't quite figure out what yet...
>
> :)
Nice try.No cigar.
You might try asking yourself why White people keep equating 'Black'
with 'evil'.
Black Dianeticx.
Blackleg.
Black mood.
Etc...:-)
As the Klingon girl in Star Trek VI said,"Inalienable Human
rightz...even the very name is racist"
Methinx you can troll better than this.Or are you incompetent :-)
C of A
Konchok Penday
<ra...@hilton.org> wrote in thread "Apology, joke, etc...", on 14 Apr
2001 20:59:38 -0400, :
Gene Goodreau wrote:
>>Just want tosay something here. My post regarding Robert D's joke and my
>>apology afterwards were totally tequila induced.
Way Cool!
>>Nevertheless, I was curious
>>to see how everyone would respond to my drunken ranting and it was quite
>>positive. I appreciate that. It is nice to see you guys didn't stomp all
>>over my comments but instead held a decent conversation. I had a really long
>>day yesterday and ended up hitting the local bar which led to chattin with a
>>girl that decided shots of tequila rose would be a good idea. (she bought!).
WAY COOL!
>>So I partied for a while then got home and logged on the
newsgroup. There
>>was Roberts comments which in my drunken stupor I took quite personally and
>>was ready to kick some ass! lol Needless to say this morning when I woke I
>>was a bit concerned about exactly what it was that I said and how it was
>>taken. As I mentioned above its nice to see things didn't get as out of
>>hand as I thought may happen (worst case). So, with that I would like to say
>>it is a pleasure to communicate with you all and I will try to keep my bar
>>hopping down to a minimum...or not...either way I will attempt to remain
>>rational when I post. later...
>>
>>Gene
Ralph Hilton:
>Not a great problem. I sometimes post some shit. I don't think I've yet
>offered to create a new asshole for someone but it was at least innovative.
>
>I can understand that while you are making good gains
>with UCP then it offends you to hear detractions.
I love the detractions!
They are such idiots!
>I can understand that you and others can
>make gains for hundreds of hours with UCP.
You only THINK you understand.
>Its not a bad process.
You have NO idea what it is.
>What I'd like you and others who communicate about your
>wins here to realize is that many here have audited not a
>few hundred hours but well over 10,000.
POOR SICK BASTARD!
And you STILL
haven't noticed:
50 YEARS OF LIES!
NOT ONE "CLEAR"!
NOT ONE "OT"!
>So when some wise-ass like KP comes along who has a
>new process and has run a hundred hours on it tries to
>tell us about our tone levels then we are not impressed.
You DISPLAY your tone level . . . IDIOT!
>I've supervised co-audits where people would
>run CCH 1-4 for 150 hours and then hit the EP.
But your tone level is STILL below -20!
>I could understand that until they hit the EP they might
>think that CCH 1-4 was the universal solvent.
But your tone level is STILL below -20!
>UCP could well run for a few hundred hours.
>Personally I looked at it and it did not indicate for me.
But your tone level is STILL below -20!
>I've run many thousands of hours solo
But your tone level is STILL below -20!
That's what's WRONG with you!
>and for me the process is too simplistic.
But your tone level is STILL below -20!
>I don't have any problem accepting that you made gains.
That's good for you, but irrelevant to me.
>I do have an objection to KP trying to
>tell people way beyond his case level
Your case level is below -20.
>to run a process that isn't applicable to their cases.
>--
>Ralph Hilton
Maybe you are right?
UCP might be beyond your ability . . .
You have a *LOT* of DISASSOCIATION
going on . . . ranting at "Say What!?" that
he had NO credibility . . . for posting anon!
YOU *LIE* UNDER YOUR OWN NAME!
WHAT AN *IDIOT* YOU ARE!
WELCOME 2
ACTUALITY!
DO UCP & SEE!
O
--- )
\
Konchok Penday
<K...@net-prophet.net>
Research & Technical Writing
Recipient of the Alex Yakovlev
Technical Excellence Award :-)
*TEST* THE UNIVERSAL CLEARING PROCESS!
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
GET YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW! @ net-prophet.net
UCP USENET POSTS @ alt.clearing.technology
on Homer's free news server: news2.lightlink.com
THE UCP WITNESS SCHOOL IS NOW OPEN!
GLOBAL SERVICE AT REASONABLE RATES . . .
DO A 24-HOUR KP APPRENTICESHIP BY PHONE!
RE-EVALUATION COUNSELLORS, LEARN UCP!
DOWNLOAD THE FREE UCP VIRTUAL WITNESS NOW!
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/download/vw091b.zip
Extract the vw091b.zip file to it's own directory.
Read the ReadMe.htm file, and then simply open
VirtualWitness.htm in your browser. *LOOK* at
your LIFE, and ANSWER the SIMPLE QUESTIONS!
YOU WILL RAISE YOUR OWN AWARENESS, NOW!
Homer Wilson Smith
>You might try asking yourself why White people keep equating 'Black'
>with 'evil'.
And God said "Let there be blackness..."
"This then is the message which we have heard of him and declare
unto you, that is God is darkness, and in Him there is no light at
all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in light,
we lie and do not the truth. But if we walk in the darkness, as he is
in the darkness, we have fellowship one with another..."
"The darkness of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be
single, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. But if thine eye be
evil, they whole body shall be full of light. If there fore the
darkness that is in thee be light, how great is that light?"
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. All things were made by him; and without him was
not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was
the darkness of men. And the darkness shineth in the light, and the
light comprehended it not.
Honkey Man's religion I guess.
>As the Klingon girl in Star Trek VI said,"Inalienable Human
>rightz...even the very name is racist"
She was right. Humans are ego centric. God bless America
is another execration that needs removal.
>Methinx you can troll better than this.Or are you incompetent :-)
Incompetent.
Love is a positive, Hate is a negative.
Beauty is a positive, Ugly is a negative.
Black is a positive, White is a negative.
All the colors of the rainbow, when they are added together
make Black.
Homer
Robert D.
> All the colors of the rainbow, when they are added together
>make Black.
>
> Homer
I hope you're being facetious.
All colors added together make white. Blackness is the absence of all
colors. All prime color pigments added together make brown - I think.
Black and white pigments mixed make gray.
You take a disk made with three joined transparant plastic sheets, each a
prime color, spin them while light shines through them, and the light going
through will turn white.
That's physics. Now anybody who chooses to extrapolate that data and apply
it to the humanities does it at his own risk - especially if he's talking to
Catherine.
RD
Ital
>
>> All the colors of the rainbow, when they are added together
>>make Black.
>>
>> Homer
Rober replied:
>I hope you're being facetious.
>
>All colors added together make white. Blackness is the absence of all
>colors. All prime color pigments added together make brown - I think.
>Black and white pigments mixed make gray.
>
>You take a disk made with three joined transparant plastic sheets, each a
>prime color, spin them while light shines through them, and the light going
>through will turn white.
>
>That's physics. Now anybody who chooses to extrapolate that data and apply
>it to the humanities does it at his own risk - especially if he's talking to
>Catherine.
>
>RD
I'm sure you are technically correct about this.
But, on a practical level, my experience has been if you mix a bunch
of colors - water colors, oil paint, food coloring - together you get
black.
I was just coloring Easter eggs Sunday and when we started running low
on 'paint' the kids decided to mix all the colors together. The mix
started out looking like a tye-die psychedelic swirl, but quickly
degraded into pure black once the colors where mixed.
I also remember in high school art class thinking I could mix
red/yellow/blue and whatever together and ended up with black.
I-Tal
Ralph Hilton
<b2oodt0hb3pcs3291...@4ax.com>, :
>>All colors added together make white. Blackness is the absence of all
>>colors. All prime color pigments added together make brown - I think.
>>Black and white pigments mixed make gray.
>I'm sure you are technically correct about this.
>
>But, on a practical level, my experience has been if you mix a bunch
>of colors - water colors, oil paint, food coloring - together you get
>black.
You aren't mixing colors you are mixing things that absorb colors. The 3
colors red, green and blue when mixed give white. This can be demonstrated
on any piant program that allows RGB options for creating color which I
think is all.
Homer Wilson Smith
>At 21:20 16/04/2001 -0400, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
>> All the colors of the rainbow, when they are added together
>>make Black.
>>
>> Homer
>I hope you're being facetious.
Hard to tell considering all the rest of that post you clipped...
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>I'm sure you are technically correct about this.
>But, on a practical level, my experience has been if you mix a bunch
>of colors - water colors, oil paint, food coloring - together you get
>black.
Sigh.
The primary emmanative colors are red, green and blue or
more accurately crimson, green and violet, when mixed together
form white.
The primary absorbtive colors (paints), are cyan, yellow and
magenta, which when mixed together form black.
They give you red, yellow and blue in paint class to confuse
the hell out of you.
I was talking about the first, for Catherines sake with the
proper 'spin' put on it to make a point.
Having worked with fractals both on the computer screen and
the printed ink, here are the true color combos.
Homer
Red + Green = Yellow
Red + Blue = Magneta
Green + Blue = Cyan
Red + Green + Blue = White
Black is an absence of red, green or blue.
TV phosphors work this way, its called the RGB system.
Cyan + Yellow = Green
Cyan + Magenta = Blue
Yellow + Magenta = Red
Cyan + Yellow + Magenta = Black
White is an absence of cyan, yellow or magenta.
Printing inks work this way, its called the CMYK system. (K =
Black).
Homer
Lone Ranger
PAINTS would indeed make black. Or at least BLECH.
Ital wrote:
> Homer said:
> >
> >> All the colors of the rainbow, when they are added together
> >>make Black.
> >>
> >> Homer
>
> Rober replied:
> >I hope you're being facetious.
> >
> >All colors added together make white. Blackness is the absence of all
> >colors. All prime color pigments added together make brown - I think.
> >Black and white pigments mixed make gray.
> >
> >You take a disk made with three joined transparant plastic sheets, each a
> >prime color, spin them while light shines through them, and the light going
> >through will turn white.
> >
> >That's physics. Now anybody who chooses to extrapolate that data and apply
> >it to the humanities does it at his own risk - especially if he's talking to
> >Catherine.
> >
> >RD
>
> I'm sure you are technically correct about this.
>
> But, on a practical level, my experience has been if you mix a bunch
> of colors - water colors, oil paint, food coloring - together you get
> black.
>
> I was just coloring Easter eggs Sunday and when we started running low
> on 'paint' the kids decided to mix all the colors together. The mix
> started out looking like a tye-die psychedelic swirl, but quickly
> degraded into pure black once the colors where mixed.
>
> I also remember in high school art class thinking I could mix
> red/yellow/blue and whatever together and ended up with black.
>
> I-Tal
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
Phil Scott
wrote:
>Ital <I-...@mindspring.com> wrote on Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:31:23 -0400 in msg
><b2oodt0hb3pcs3291...@4ax.com>, :
>
>>>All colors added together make white. Blackness is the absence of all
>>>colors. All prime color pigments added together make brown - I think.
>>>Black and white pigments mixed make gray.
>
>>I'm sure you are technically correct about this.
>>
>>But, on a practical level, my experience has been if you mix a bunch
>>of colors - water colors, oil paint, food coloring - together you get
>>black.
>
>You aren't mixing colors you are mixing things that absorb colors. The 3
>colors red, green and blue when mixed give white. This can be demonstrated
>on any piant program that allows RGB options for creating color which I
>think is all.
Red, green and blue...are NOT primary colors. The primary colors are
Red, Yellow, and Blue. (green is a mix of the two primary's blue
and yellow, and is not a primary color itself, green is what is called
a secondary, a mix of two primaries..)
Ralph...go get some paint. In each of the three primary colors,
any kind of paint. Mix all 3 colors. you WILL get black if they are
true primaries. You will get various off-blacks (dark muddy almost
black browns, greens or reds) if the primaries you choose are shades
of the primary colors not true primaries... and the primaries you
select must be 100% saturated 'intense' colors or you will not get a
true black but a slightly lighter shade of black.
this is quite basic color mixing technology available in nearly
all books on paint mixing.
That is because paint and 'colored objects' reflect back certain
wave lengths. , and absorb the rest of the colors from the light that
strikes them. The color they reflect back is what you see. if it
reflects back red, you call it red. All the rest of the colors are
absorbed by the object and converted to heat.
the confusion enters in when the light itself is the issue, natural
sunlight is a mix of ALL frequencies of radiation, including those
that show up as colors on the wall when refracted through a prism, so
white LIGHT is a mix of all colors.....
but the colored object is the oposite, a white appearing object has
the quality of **reflecting all wave lengths of light so that mix of
wave lengths reflected is white, as is full spectrum light source
itself.
(there is partial spectrum light, as well, light only of one
frequency, red light for instance used to advertise whore houses, and
UV light, etc,. and partial spectrum light supplied by high
efficiency florescent tubes (very bad for ones health, see book by
Ott, on the subject of this fake light and health).
A black appearing object, absorbs all of the frequencies of light,
color mixing then is the reverse of the light itself, and reflects
back very little, so it is seen as the absence of light and color.
I think Ralph, that a lack of understanding of basic physics accounts
for the fact of so little comprehension of the real spiritual issues
Hubbard addressed. He said correctly imho that spiritual physics
parallels material physics in all but *one instance. (a 1967 PAP
published in advance Mag around 1974 or so) For years I had not
discovered that one instance. Last year I did, I posted it, and now
have forgotten what it was.
Something along the lines of this light issue. What is true from the
perspective of the light itself is the REVERSE for the object it
impinges on.
Those with no education or understanding of physics get to muddle
around in the dark on these issues, and clone the end result, Hubbard
processes and call that 'understanding'.
It isn't. Not too many laboring under these sorts of
misaprehensions go free. You see?
No 'U' (understanding) is a result of no A, R, C . Pretty basic.
No reality = no understanding. It derives from ARC = U.
On earth one has his work cut out for him in that regard. there is a
lot to understand broad spectrum. The basic bottom line physics
though are not that tough to understand, I have found that
understanding crucial.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
Homer Wilson Smith
>Red, green and blue...are NOT primary colors. The primary colors are
>Red, Yellow, and Blue. (green is a mix of the two primary's blue
>and yellow, and is not a primary color itself, green is what is called
>a secondary, a mix of two primaries..)
Totally wrong Phil.
For mixing light, crimson, green and blue/violet are in fact
primaries.
For mixing paints, Yellow and CYAN mix to green. Blue is a badly
defined color somewhere between true sky-blue cyan and violet. What
most people call blue, like bluejean blue, is a mongrel color that has
no use in either system. TV phosphors tend to use this mongrel blue
instead of violet because its just too hard to get a pure violet
phosphor, but under a prism the blue will be seen to have much green
in it along with the violet. True violet has no green in it.
The Red used in TV phosphors is also a very poor red, the true
color is crimson which has no green in it, the red used on TV
phosphors has lots of green in it under the prism, and is used again
for practicality sakes.
The end results are that TV monitors are completely incapable of
showing true crimson or violet. They tend to mush both into magenta
which is a mixture of red at one end and blue at the other. Take a
prism some day and shine bright white light through it and go look
BACK INTO THE PRISM directly into the split ray, crimson on the far
right, violet on the far left.
>Ralph...go get some paint. In each of the three primary colors,
>any kind of paint. Mix all 3 colors. you WILL get black if they are
>true primaries.
Again incorrect.
Red is Magenta mixed with Yellow.
If Red, Yellow and Blue were true paint primaries you could get
Magenta out of them, but you can't. Red and Blue make a very dark
purple, nothing at all like Magenta. Also you can't get cyan, as Blue
is already too dark, and yellow and blue make green.
Believe me, having worked with monitors and prints for 15 years
making my living, RGB is primary for mixing light, and CMY is primary
for mixing paints.
Homer
C of A
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> Printing inks work this way, its called the CMYK system. (K =
> Black).
Why is 'K' black,Homer?.Shouldn't it be CMYB?.
C of A,puzzled
C of A
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
>
> Phil Scott (phils...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >Red, green and blue...are NOT primary colors. The primary colors are
> >Red, Yellow, and Blue. (green is a mix of the two primary's blue
> >and yellow, and is not a primary color itself, green is what is called
> >a secondary, a mix of two primaries..)
>
> Totally wrong Phil.
>
> For mixing light, crimson, green and blue/violet are in fact
> primaries.
Am I on the right NG?.
I mean,the names look familiar but....:-)
C of A
Homer Wilson Smith
B is used for Blue.
Homer
>C of A,puzzled
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com