Perhaps there can be a note at the beginning of each opening post/thread, e.g. "It is NOT recommended to read these thematically categorized/indexed summaries for those who have not at the very least read the Wave/Adventures series (and preferably more material that includes enough context). Without the all-important context of these communications, there is a very high chance of making wrong assumptions and interpretations, and coming to erroneous conclusions."
There can also be additional text, such as " And do not forget that the C's experiment is the 10% inspiration for the 90% perspiration of doing the hard research to find data confirming or refuting the information communicated by the C's. Nothing is believed or taken at face value, just because they were stated in a session transcript." etc. Something conveying the crux of the matter/issues raised.
For those of us who have read and re-read Laura's work for years, there's also the benefit of knowing that the same session/excerpts are used in different contexts in her writings. Because of this, along with the learning/growing experience, the impression that the C's messages have MANY layers of meaning has been strengthened over the years. And there are still questions being raised and networking to see what other meanings can be gleaned from the C's clues all the time.
Just reading through dougquaid's postings (I've read barely 1/3 so far), I haven't seen any glaring problems with distortion / misinterpretation. There may have been some things I wasn't sure about, but I've never read the raw transcripts in sequence (or studied them carefully by several sequential readings). So others may be better able to point out if there are problems that need to be clarified. The only time I've read raw transcripts are those posted by Laura in the Sessions board, but I'm pretty familiar with most of the sessions from all the years of reading. I could definitely see that this could be a major problem for someone who has no idea what it's about to read first.
It could give many false impressions, including that there are "firm answers" established where they may be clues with multiple meanings, not to mention if the reader doesn't know about the distortion/corruption of the channel at certain periods, etc. All that said, I think it could be another helpful resource / tool (like the glossary or Shijings postings a couple of years ago trying to tease out more from all the hints in the transcripts and correlate them with modern sources of research, etc.). At this point, though, it is pretty hard to follow, reading them in this thread because of the posts being cut off and picked up later in other posts. So starting over, as Laura suggested, would be very helpful, keeping in mind the word / character count limit for each post.
