Re: The Site

2007-8-25 00:39:00

John Crane writes:

"I never attacked anybody who read or commented on this self-declared Messiah, so there is no need to take a defensive posture. I never said that I assumed that anybody here was a 'narrow-minded idiot.' Those were your words not mine. There are many ways to interpret what I said."

JJ:

And I did not put those words in your mouth. I went out of my way to say that such meaning may not be your intention but your statement came across that way. If I unknowingly give a negative impression I would hope that someone would point out such a thing to me so I could clarify my position.

Quoting JJ from an earlier post:

"I suggest we all give each other the benefit of the doubt and assume purity of motive unless there is strong evidence suggesting otherwise."

John Crane responded with:

"AMEN. And I hope you would extend the same courtesy to me. I'm not trying to impugn, insinuate, insult, or trick anybody. I asked a question, but what I got back was a bunch of flack. At this point, I am beginning to wonder if there is anything I could say that wouldn't be taken the wrong way."

JJ:

I see Johann feels the same way. At this point I think we should all take a deep breath and move forward as if nothing has happened and assume pure motive in all others.

Most of the time people get offended on this list is over statements that were a little carelessly made, but not intended to attack.

John Crane:

"I should probably just shut up at this point, but something else tells me to go ahead and trust. I trust that you will take me at my words and not try to twist them, and you trust me that I am not trying to attack anybody. Okay?"

JJ:

I take all members here at their word and if their words seem amiss I may seek clarification. I do not comment on a lot of the negativity here but since you are usually positive and a lot of members like your posts I thought it was important that whatever you meant by the statement in question was clarified.

Quoting JJ from an earlier post:

"Judging from his links he seems to think that DK [Djwhal Khul] and associates are dark masters totally into self seeking to lead us unto a black hole of destruction."

John Crane:

"Did he actually say that, or did one of his links say that he thought DK and associates are dark masters?"

JJ:

He didn't say this himself. I noticed that he had no links to anything theosophical or the Bailey material. So, I suspected that he was negative on them. Then I found a link to a treatise called "The Dangers of Eastern Masters." I would guess this represents his thinking. It is an intelligent guess and I could be wrong -- but not likely.

It looks like he is quite supportive of direct voice channeling but does differentiate in their quality.

He has some links to the texts of fairly recent books that are probably in copyright such as Conversations with God and Bringers of the Dawn. This presents an opportunity to download them free.