Anon, we got off on the wrong foot (!!!) with the channeling stuff. Your post here clarifies things to me. First, I didn't know you were being humorous in your response regarding Jerry's comment. It was a humorous jump in logic not an illogical jump and/or projection on your part. For me the comment attributed to Jerry is a very funny, classic Jerry take on people who regard channelers as speaking the absolute truth or having some sort of access to "the truth". So ,in short, I didn't know it was a joke and it started to tumble south from there.
So, in response to your original question, I don't think all channelers are stupid. My opinion based on my own short experience with channeling (Teachings of the Inner Christ a la Susan Chumsky) is that it is something that was very, very unhealthy for me to participate in. It opened me up to all sorts of unpleasant subtle realms and very, very funky subtle beings. Other's have completely different, positive experiences with it. So my critque of channeling was being over-stated in an offhand way (i.e., ...doesn't that sum it all up..." etc.) My personal opinion is that it is foolish to channel. That's all. --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Vaj > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 2005, at 10:24 AM, anonymousff wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > I think he was just being his usual humorous, > jovial and friendly self. > > > > Email's a dry communication medium. They say body > communication is like > > 80+% of communication--take away body and voice > inflection and there's > > very little left. So I place attention on that, > being aware of that. > > Seems to help...some of the time : ) > > Thanks. I will keep that in mind. > > In my response to Peter, "And thus all chanellees > are stupid?" ?" I > was just being my usual humorous, jovial and > friendly self. > > But even if my comment's tone was misinterpreted, > does that justify > being called a "passive aggressive asshole"? Which > response is over > the top here? > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 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/
