Session 13 May 2017

[Scottie]

That was the point. There was a lot of complaining about sore arms after the previous answer and exclamations about how hard it had been to keep up with the speed. MOST of that was omitted from the transcript as noise. Obviously that omission has led to false assumptions. Geeze, people complain if you keep in every little remark, and they get false impressions if you don't. I thought that just enough was left in, but apparently not.

Exactly.

Also keep in mind that in the case of the [Everybody yammering at once], there is a LOT being said.

Even if my brain can keep up with all the conversations, it's nearly impossible to transcribe. So instead of killing myself to get everything totally perfect, I only include the most relevant statements such that the gist of the dialog comes through as accurately as possible.

On top of that, there are things like people being tired, sore arms (especially after fast and long answers), etc. That's either hard to convey in a transcript, or kind of unnecessary because describing every little thing would mean longer transcription times, longer and more verbose transcripts, etc.

Point is, there is usually a LOT going on during a session that won't "come through" in the transcripts. And that's exactly why Laura has been stressing for years now that the context of sessions and the questions and answers is very important: because it is!

Now, all of that is on top of the nature of communication with the C's. I don't have the transcript at hand, but we did one last year I think where we were asking for numbers about something, and it seemed to be getting discombobulated. So we asked about that, and the answer was basically that it's rather difficult to give such numbers because there are a gajillion variables.

I think the C's also indicated that for them (and here I'm using my own analogy) it's like having to zoom in through clouds while being able to see everything all at once throughout all time: it ain't easy!

So yeah, we asked for numbers, but personally, I never expect the numbers to be 100% accurate. That's not really the point. The point is to get a general idea of "who won" in the case of the elections.

Of course, we here also get caught up in the numbers sometimes, but such is life trapped in a human machine! ;D

 

[Bo]

Thank you for the new session, donated a late mother's day gift as well!

 

[Aya]

Thank you for the new session, donated a late mother's day gift as well!

I just sent a late mother's day fund, too. Thank you all for sharing the interesting session.

 

[RedFox]

Thank you for the new session, donated a late mother's day gift as well!

I just sent a late mother's day fund, too. Thank you all for sharing the interesting session.

Donation sent too (ref: 48H878354W9020730)

 

[luc]

I understood their answer as, "Well, it takes 2 to tango, but yeah...15, randy, and naive? Do the math!"

Yeah. hlat, it seems to me you are reading way too much into this. There are always many levels of analysis, many angles from which to look at something that happened, many aspects of a story. So, you must pick an angle, as the Cs did here (keeping the answer relevant to the question), otherwise you end up with infinity.

I mean, do you expect the Cs to make some disclaimers after every answer? Like "BTW, we are against pedophilia, and you know, some pedophiles use this and that justification, just to clarify that this isn't what we mean, and also, there are some special circumstances that need to be taken into account, like in a situation where blablabla"...

It seems to me that your statement was driven by the need to have a set of rules that is applicable universally, that will tell you automatically who is to blame, who is right and who is wrong etc. But that just can't be. I think we always need to look at the context, at the questions at hand, at the level on which we set our minds in any given moment etc. In this case, the Cs simply stated that M. has consented to a degree. That was the level at which the discussion took place. It wasn't about whether consent from a 15 year old is worth anything on a moral level, or whether exploiting such a situation is morally wrong, and all the millions of other questions one could ask about this.

Just my impression, fwiw.

 

[Anamarija]

I understood their answer as, "Well, it takes 2 to tango, but yeah...15, randy, and naive? Do the math!"

It seems to me that your statement was driven by the need to have a set of rules that is applicable universally, that will tell you automatically who is to blame, who is right and who is wrong etc. But that just can't be. I think we always need to look at the context, at the questions at hand, at the level on which we set our minds in any given moment etc. In this case, the Cs simply stated that M. has consented to a degree. That was the level at which the discussion took place. It wasn't about whether consent from a 15 year old is worth anything on a moral level, or whether exploiting such a situation is morally wrong, and all the millions of other questions one could ask about this.

Just my impression, fwiw.

And damn good one.

Is this just my impression or some people find this session different (less true) from the ones before?

 

[bjorb]

27 years older when he was 15. That's just really pushing it. Something like that has to be about control.

She had 3 children at the time, her oldest being 13 years old. How is that like, if your mom introduces her new boyfriend and you see this boyscout just barely 2 years older than you. That's weird in all kind of ways.

I donated an amount for the fountain of youth

 

[scotseeker]

Thank you Laura and team for another fascinating session! Will make a donation to the FOTCM in order to get Laura back to good health, appreciate all she does for each and every one of us! :)

 

[Marina9]

Thank you Laura & Chateau crew for the new session.

Laura, I wish you the very very best with this stem cell therapy, i'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers, a big big hug! And thank you again for all that you do

 

[A Jay]

I've donated to CSM before Beau's posts, I hope it's okay. I'll donate next month to QFG.

Tomek, not sure what you're wanting to donate to or for, but as I understand it QFG is for SOTT (could be wrong here). So if you want to make a donation to keep SOTT alive then donating to the QFG is fine. However, if you're wanting to make another donation for Laura's 'Mother's Day Fund' you might want to re-read Beau's post.

edit: clarity

 

[goyacobol]

Thanks for sharing the session.
But I think we have to be very cautious with this session, because as it as already said, there is things that appears incoherent, and it is not usual with C's.

The stem cell therapy sounds good for me, but I hope doctors in that clinic are ok.

I live in France (as I'm French ;) ), and I followed the electoral campaign very closely. I talked with a lot of persons at work, or in my family, with friends, or even with people I didn't know and... the percentages given by the C's are just... impossible. It's just impossible that Asselineau made 29%. I love this guy and I followed his campaign, but I talked with a lot of people, and even the most aware of us... didn't vote Asselineau... I just found anyone in my circle who want to vote Asselineau... Anyone... Si sounds just impossible that 29% of the population vote for him... I was the only one... And just everyone take him for a fool... They voted Mélenchon (a lot), Macron (a lot), Le pen (a lot, but 61 %, it sounds to me very weird because a lot of people don't like her) but not Asselineau. Sorry. Before the election, I thought that if he did 5 %, that would be a huge score for him. On the internet, he was popular. But only in a very little part of the population. The part who think. A very little part, sadly...

Honestly, the official results seems to me closer to the reality. It reflects far better that french people wanted to vote... Anyway, the publicity done with Macron was incredible... People follow what the are told to do...

So why ? Why this scores for C's ? We have to question ourselves.

Many of these questions have already been addressed and I wasn't going to comment but I think it may be important so here goes.

First I think you had at least one very good statement "We have to question ourselves. " I think it is excellent advice.

it as already said, there is things that appears incoherent, and it is not usual with C's.

Actually, you are the first one to use the word "incoherent". You may have gotten that impression from the earlier post by happyliza where she talked about:
the

"What I was very concerned about with the Session WAS the above irregularities.

and

Also it was unusual for Laura to forget to ask the name of the C's communicating at the beginning.

That may have set the tone for you to think this session was "irregular" or "unusual".

As far as the "unusual" part of forgetting to ask the name of the Cs see my response here.

Keeping with the positive I notice you were kind of positive here:

The stem cell therapy sounds good for me, but I hope doctors in that clinic are ok.

It is the "but" part that makes me wonder.

Yes, but

The words "yes, but" are often a tell-tale sign of self-justification and rationalization. In itself, there's nothing wrong with using these words in discussion; but when applied to oneself, repeated use of "yes, but" will create a self-tranquillizing mechanism which is esoterically harmful. Lying to oneself dulls one's ability to discern truth, which is the very thing esoteric work seeks to develop.

Also, when you say:

Honestly, the official results seems to me closer to the reality. It reflects far better that french people wanted to vote.

When many or most of us see the elections as "rigged" why does that make the official results "closer to the reality" and "reflects far better that french people wanted to vote"? Rigged elections anyone?

 

[Woodpecker]

Why USA or Russia? I check on the internet and I see stem cell therapy is cheaper in Turkey than USA but with the same quality with it.

"CHEAPER SERVICE IN AMERICA QUALITY IN TURKEY"

Rush University Medical Center in Chicago Director, Department of Bone Marrow, Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Dr. Gorgun Akpek, stem cell transplantation before and after surgery was important to follow closely. Akpek stated that it was a risky treatment method and risk has decreased in time. "New medicines come and their effect is obviously priced at a certain level And these are quite a lot in America. You can talk about hundreds of thousands of dollars. These amounts are less in Turkey and the transactions made are the same."

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/turkiyede-kok-hucre-tedavisi-dunya-standartlarinda-40064479

 

[Goemon_]

Honestly, the official results seems to me closer to the reality. It reflects far better that french people wanted to vote.

When many or most of us see the elections as "rigged" why does that make the official results "closer to the reality" and "reflects far better that french people wanted to vote"? Rigged elections anyone?

Also (or maybe another way to state the above mentioned quote from goyaobol), when it seems that the official results are "closer to the reality" it may be because the results (official) of the previous elections are making an influence on oneself. But, where those results rigged ?

 

[Keit]

Actually, you are the first one to use the word "incoherent". You may have gotten that impression from the earlier post by happyliza where she talked about:
the

"What I was very concerned about with the Session WAS the above irregularities.

.

Just a hypothesis, but it could be due to priming, or some other cognitive bias. Basically, it is possible that there were those who distorted what was said due to their own personal convictions, and there were others who got primed by them and ran with them even further. Maybe. Because, personally, I find some of the reactions as very perplexing. Granted, some of them come from people who don't post much on the forum. Or they are French. Maybe it has to do with the French mentality? Or maybe the intensity of the events and the emotions that surrond them prevent French people from seeing the nuances of the situation and what was said?

The bottom line is, it's not the first time that the C's have given exact numbers that didn't add up, or said that it was only "an approximation". But for some reason there are doubts regarding accuracy of the data, not to mention Laura's state of mind, because she "forgot to ask the C's name at the beginning"?? Straw man argument comes to mind.

 

[Laura]

Is this just my impression or some people find this session different (less true) from the ones before?

Two people: HappyLiza (who has a very poor track record of reality evaluation) and Sentenza who also has a somewhat poor record of "reading". It's interesting to see how HappyLiza "primed" Sentenza who was already "busting to argue" it seems. It's always a good idea to take note of such things as they happen and to maintain your mental/psychic hygiene and do not let suggestive remarks anchor in your brain while you are trying to make your own evaluation.