Shael said:
Azoun said:
To be fair that comment coming from anyone is ridiculous. It's impossible to know what other members on here are truly capable of especially when it can be difficult to know ourselves.
To give you some context, this guy specifically has shown on many accounts that he is mentally unstable and insane. He made himself believe that HPS Shannon was an enemy and openly tried to slander her here after harassing her continuously on her email.
I know the details of this whole situation, and this is why I wrote what I did. I wouldn't write something like this to someone if I didn't know for certain they are delusional and writing garbage on here to deceive themselves.
And I did actually bust out laughing. This wasnt some figure of speech to insult him.
If someone is inappropriately passionate or made a mistake in judgement, does that make them insane? Given the context of the entirety of spiritual advancement, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they have an imbalance somewhere, which would be temporary, as opposed to insane, which implies a higher degree of permanance?
I thought he said somewhere that he was accidently attacking himself psychically, and earlier somewhere he said his lower chakras were less developed, at least in some point in time. Taken together, this could simply point to a need for more grounding, both emotionally (such as in confrontation with HPS Shannon), and spiritually (as with the psychic attacks).
It seems like he realized this at some point, because he talked about ways to ground, such as sitting in nature. Additionally, he mentioned he is fire-dominant, has a mind for security, combined with this pre-existing imbalance and potential enemy influence, and I think that might explain why he reacted in such a high-strung manner towards HPS Shannon.
While I don't think the way he acted was the best way to go about it, I think he was correct in his statement that Jewish influence cannot be trusted anywhere, even if it makes you discard your information source entirely. In the end, they both calmed down and apologized to one another.
With this in mind, I don't think it is appropriate to just blatantly call someone insane or delusional, or freely fling around names such as Jew or Christian. These are all very damaging labels, which must be applied only when truly justified. To someone unknowing of the true course of events, such labels create a strong negative perception of the individual, as opposed to saying the person was simply wrong. The damage is too severe and hard to undo, especially in the context of an online forum.
The anonymity and virtual environment of an online forum presents an emotional barrier between individuals such that both positive and negative interactions are blunted in their full magnitude. This allows for fights to erupt where they never would in a real-life scenario, but it can also allow for someone to react positively and write very thoughtfully before posting, thus defusing or avoiding conflict.
People are too quick to type "fug u idit!!!" as opposed to going the extra mile and laying out a well-written account of their feelings, arguments, as well as space for the recipient to save face. Both choices are afforded to us in this environment, so we should make full use of the latter.
I am sure you probably know of details that may counter what I said in some way. I do not know the full reality of all interactions here, nor do I claim to. My driving force behind writing this is that I wish to unify us and promote resolution of conflict whenever it can occur. I do not see why we have to cast character-killing judgement upon someone when our entire movement is based around the complete perfection of our being. Can we not instead just point to where improvement is needed?
With all fights, some people will have more blame than others, and while this is not insignificant, the person holding a higher degree of blame should still be allowed an exit strategy that allows them to save face. Slapping them with an insulting label does not do that and does not truly end the conflict, it just saves it for another time.
Between allies, I think it better to have an unequal peaceful resolution than a violent, yet equal resolution. When someone steps on your foot, the situation is resolved when they apologize for their lack of coordination. You do not have to demand that you stamp on their foot in return for resolution, even though this is an "equal" action to theirs. This does not apply between enemies, but it does apply to allies who find themselves within a verbal dispute, where peaceful resolution should be sought.
I think I typed too much.