--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems this is all is just a lot senseless griping. All Dr. Pete said > was > > "And of course the classic Jerry Jarvis line on > channeling,"Just because you're dead doesn't make you > smart!" I think it sums up the whole thing, doesn't > it?" > > Which did not appear to imply in any way that 'disincarnates were NOT > smart' but a humorous observation which points out the importance of > discrimination in such matters. > > My question would be 'why did anon miss this and instead reply': > > "And thus all chanellees are stupid?" ?
Well Vaj, perhaps I am the supid one (always willing to back down when my reasoning or facts are shown incorrect). I think Jerry's comment is wonderful. Very characcteristic of his gentle wit. To me, and my reaction may be tied to Peter's past style and tone, not just his words, I felt Peter's comment was twisting Jerry's comment, "I think it sums up the whole thing, doesn't". My take on his comment was that 'well that settles it, you can't rely on ANY channeler'. I realize it was my interpretation of tone, not the words themselves, and in that I may have misteken his tone. While I am not a fan of channelers, I just felt such twisting was uncalled for. So I asked the neutral and somehat humerous extrapolation of his point, "And thus all chanellees are stupid?" ?" My goal was to make him laugh and say, well no, I didn't really mean to imply that. Instead he comes back and calls me a passive aggressive asshole. "Just like my patients!" Wow! The paradox deepens. Here is a psychologist, whe presumably treats people for passive agressive and anger management disorders calling me an P-A asshole becasue I made a neutral statement in an attempt to have him see how his words may have overstated a case. So, not wishing to imflame things and react directly to his words, I tried to back away. I tried to get him to look at himself, how silly he was acting (IMO). I said, something to the effect, "you are painting quite a picture of yourself" -- trying to get him to look at himself and his words. I added, matter of factly, "the cameras are rolling". That is, I was reminding him we are not talking on some deserted street, but in front of up to 900 listeners. And If he wants to cntinue to make a fool of himself, he should be made aware (reminded) of that. Because in his anger and impulsiveness, I felt this may not have been in the forfront of his mind.) So, if I could have handled this better Vaj, or others, let me know. I am always open to becoming more skillful in personal relattions -- in life and internet. From what I can see, the option is, when confronted with explosive anger and name calling, not even try to make neutral statements with an attempt to try to close out the convo quickly, and not try to offer simple statements to help the other see himself objectively. But just leave it, not respond at all. What do you think? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
