I had a read of the screenshots you posted, but honestly, I cannot see anything amazing really. These are the types of ‘inspirational’ texts that you find on the net a dime a dozen. And everybody would agree with most of that, no contest.
I concur with Konstantin (and Joe quoted by him), that this is not the way things work in the ‘Truth department’. Look at the difference between the C transcripts and the Q. OK, both can be a bit cryptic, but the Cs don‘t take Laura by the hand and spoon-feed her. The onus is on her to do the research, then ask the question, follow-up, research, synthesize and then ask new questions based on that.
And then you can of course argue that Laura and the Cs do the same thing, leading the forum members by the hand. And in a sense that might be true to some extent, and I guess that is the reason that there are many lurkers on the fringes who read the sessions but not much else. And that’s OK, but you don’t get the full benefit from that. And that‘s where networking comes into play.
On any given topic you have a starting point from which things then develop, and over time through the contribution of diverse people with diverse views and diverse skills comes a new understanding of things, that none alone would be even remotely able to achieve. What I find fascinating with this process is that it leads in entirely unforeseeable directions. So the messages from the Cs are a starting point, not ‘His Master’s Voice’.
And I see none of that with Q - he gives his cryptic messages and checks out again. What ensues after that is mostly a discussion among his followers to try to make sense of what Q said. And this is not networking, because there is no feedback loop between Q and his followers.
I concur with Konstantin (and Joe quoted by him), that this is not the way things work in the ‘Truth department’. Look at the difference between the C transcripts and the Q. OK, both can be a bit cryptic, but the Cs don‘t take Laura by the hand and spoon-feed her. The onus is on her to do the research, then ask the question, follow-up, research, synthesize and then ask new questions based on that.
And then you can of course argue that Laura and the Cs do the same thing, leading the forum members by the hand. And in a sense that might be true to some extent, and I guess that is the reason that there are many lurkers on the fringes who read the sessions but not much else. And that’s OK, but you don’t get the full benefit from that. And that‘s where networking comes into play.
On any given topic you have a starting point from which things then develop, and over time through the contribution of diverse people with diverse views and diverse skills comes a new understanding of things, that none alone would be even remotely able to achieve. What I find fascinating with this process is that it leads in entirely unforeseeable directions. So the messages from the Cs are a starting point, not ‘His Master’s Voice’.
And I see none of that with Q - he gives his cryptic messages and checks out again. What ensues after that is mostly a discussion among his followers to try to make sense of what Q said. And this is not networking, because there is no feedback loop between Q and his followers.
