laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
10-19-2009, 05:33 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-21-2009, 01:41 PM by Monica.)
#1
laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
Hey, I am confused, I responded to a thread about The Cassiopaeans a week or two ago, and now I can't find any trace of it on the forum? Did it get deleted? Why? Huh
Find all posts by this user
10-20-2009, 05:18 AM,
#2
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
Actually I didn't notice before you wrote this thread, so I checked my PM:

Quote:Hi ayadew!

Thank you for your participation in the forum! We value your input!

In order to keep our forum focused on our mission, which is living and understanding the Law of One, we have established some guidelines.

Here is an excerpt from our guidelines that addresses why devoting entire threads to other channeled sources is discouraged on our forum. (see bold parts):

3) Similarly, the New Age, ET, Metaphysical, and Alternative Physics communities are diverse, popular, and numerous. In order to have worthwhile discussion that is beneficial to those who are interested in the material, we must restrict our focus to topics that relate to our core mission. Members who selfishly use the forum’s common resources without regard for its members' shared interests may be unsubscribed. This includes those who insist on promoting / showcasing themselves, their own websites, philosophies, products, services or other unrelated teachings.

4) The vast majority of "popular" channeling is not included, and for most intents and purposes is considered off-topic. Such material is best discussed on other message boards devoted to the study and integration of those particular teachings.

Thus, in alignment with the guidelines, I have deleted your thread from the Olio sub-forum.

Please know that this action does not, in any way, put any sort of judgment as to the content of your post! In fact, I personally agreed with your comments, as well as the other comments on that thread, and actually considered keeping the thread active. I especially liked the loving, compassionate way in which you approached the subject and extended love to Laura! But, the other mods and I discussed the matter and realized that we really do need to be consistent. We have deleted other threads before that dealt with other channeled sources, and we don't want to start making our decision based on whether we personally agree with the comments or not. That would be projecting our bias onto the situation and allowing it to color our decisions. So, in order to be consistent, we realized that we need to apply the same criteria in each case; ie., if it's a thread about another channeled source, we will delete it, regardless of whether we happen to like the comments or not.

Please feel free to share your personal experiences in the Blogs section if you wish (see the button at the top of the page, next to the Forum button).

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation!

Love/Light

Monica
Forum Moderator

Well, to all members of this forum, it is a Law of One-centered forum, although my personal opinion is that the Olio-part should not be so restrictive, because it IS in essence entirely off-topic.
In any case, I think we established in that thread that many of us think that Laura and the Cassiopaeans are of negative intent, but if this does not resonate with you please discard, as always, and read whatever you wish.
So, in the end, perhaps the thread was not very meaningful.
10-20-2009, 11:55 AM,
#3
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
I was following the thread with some keen interest, I am bummed that it has been deleted! I think it would be reasonable to perhaps make an amendment to the forum guidelines. While I understand that it is important not to open our Law of One forum to just any topic whatsoever (although the Olio sub-forum paradoxically seems to have been created for this purpose), I see real value in investigating other channeled sources as they relate to the Law of One.

For example I have a co-existing thread that centers around Alan Watts at the moment, the great philosopher from the 1970's and 60's. I created it so that we could directly compare his lecture material to the Law of One, and I think it's been valuable to at least two other members here. Is my Watts thread spared the axe because it is not channeled? If you listen to him speaking, or watch him in a video, it becomes obvious (to me at least) that he is if nothing else extremely inspired, maybe even divinely so. How different is this from channeling?

Just my two cents, but I don't like the forum rule too much. We're limiting ourselves. Sad
Find all posts by this user
10-20-2009, 01:52 PM,
#4
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
Perhaps a forum section for other channeled material exclusively is in order
10-20-2009, 10:08 PM,
#5
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
It is no big deal that the discussion was deleted, and Ayadew is correct that essentially the conclusion was that people here did not have a totally-good feeling about the C's material. I was just thinking about it over the weekend and wanted to reread what some folks' comments, and was confused when I couldn't find it, but I guess it may have been too "off-topic".

Still, I think it is actually good to have a place to discuss other channeled material, if only in comparison to the Ra/Quo/LOO material, because I think there is a lot to be learned through observing the differences (and similarities) in the material that has come through from different sources, like the C's, or the P's, or the H's.. Smile
Find all posts by this user
10-20-2009, 11:52 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-21-2009, 01:54 AM by Monica.)
#6
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
Hi Everyone!

Sorry for the confusion! When I delete a thread, I always contact the person who started the thread, explaining the reason, and I include the text from his/her original post, so s/he can repost it as a blog if s/he wants to. If the thread hasn't gotten many posts yet, I also save all the posts, as a record of the dialog.

In the future, I will contact the participants as well as the originator of the thread, as a courtesy. I did this before when a thread had gotten rather involved, but I didn't think to do it this time, and for that I apologize!

I have deleted a thread only a very few times, and in every case it was because it was about other channeled sources and therefore in violation of the guidelines.

In every case, the decision was not taken lightly. Our policy is that all the moderators discuss the issue and make a decision together. That way, it isn't up to one person, although I usually have the honors of carrying out the action.

We actually agonize over these decisions! Sometimes it takes us several days of emailing and discussing by phone, weighing out the pros and cons. We realize that there is a bit of gray area in some cases, such as the very good question about why 'other' non-channeled works aren't considered off-topic but 'other' channeled works are.

Our rationale was as follows:

Our prime directive is to honor the guidelines, whose prime directive is to keep our forum focused on our core mission of discussing the Law of One, as envisioned by Carla.

As explained in the guidelines, there are already countless other 'New Age' forums which discuss other channeled works. I have personally participated in other forums, as well as moderating (though briefly), and I have witnessed a great deal of confusion when multiple channeled works were allowed into the mix. Specifically, people would often discuss one channeled source, quoting from it, and other members would mistakenly think that it was a different channeled source. For someone who might be a casual participant, skipping around but not following all the threads closely, it could be very easy to read snippets of a discussion about some other source, and think it was from Confederation sources. I saw this happen on the other forum.

Since our primary objective is to preserve the clarity of the Law of One as much as possible, we consider this a very real concern.

In addition, many people consider channeled sources inherently more authoritative. Therefore, to read about, say, the Cassiopaeans might be taken with much more weight than, say, Alan Watts, simply because it is explicitly channeled (even though I do get your point about inspiration being a form of channeling in a sense). I agree that deleting the Cassiopaeans thread but allowing the Alan Watts thread might appear to be rather arbitrary. I questioned this myself! But please know that our intention is to be as allowing as possible, rather than restrictive. Ie, if we deleted the Alan Watts thread, then what about the Nassim thread? Where do we draw the line?

For now, as the guidelines stand, we draw the line at other channeled sources. It is not our intention to limit discussions of other topics. A key purpose of this forum is to discuss life and its myriad concerns thru the lens of the Law of One. Hence, we have many various topics being discussed here, most of which are related to the Law of One in some way. Those that aren't are, at the very least, benign.

However, there are some specific reasons as to why other channeled sources are considered off-topic, not the least of which is their inherent tendency to further distortion. Although the other mods and I personally agreed that there was value in that Cassiopeans thread, and perhaps even a lessening of distortion in certain respects, we didn't want our personal opinions to influence our decision to adhere to the guidelines. (The default is to always adhere to the guidelines, but there is a provision for the occasional exception.) For the sake of consistency, we decided that it had to go. Else, the next time someone started a thread about some other channeled source, it might appear biased if we left one but deleted the other.

That's not to say that the guidelines won't ever be changed! But, for now, this is what we are working with and I hope you can all understand that we want to be fair and consistent.

I cannot speak for the other moderators, and I suspect that Gary might have more to add to this. For now, I just wanted to offer an explanation for why this particular thread was deleted. I have alerted the other mods to this thread, so your input will be noted! We are always open to suggestion and discussion! Please know that Carla's vision for this forum and Law of One principles are both key factors as to how the guidelines were designed.
Find all posts by this user
10-21-2009, 02:59 AM,
#7
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
Monica: It's quite fine, but thank you for your lengthy answer. Smile I can follow your train of reason, and then the problem we have is not with you deleting the thread.
It's the actual forum guidelines.

I'm not sure what effects an elusive forum-part for other channeled material might have. It will draw some people that are not so interested in the LoO; that's for sure. But there's much good channeled material out there that could be meaningful to us here. A final argument is that the LoO encompasses all things, but then we'd have forums for EVERYTHING. Big Grin

I really just wish the forum guidelines to be less restrictive on this.
10-21-2009, 10:34 AM,
#8
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
Thank you also Monica, for writing that all out, it is appreciated! And in re-reading my post I feel I came out a little strong sounding. I do that now and again without even realizing it. Doh!

I agree with ayadew, I think the heart of the matter is in the forum guidelines. It would be so great to have a sub-forum for other material, for two reasons. First that as ayadew just mentioned there are a lot of great sources out there and they speak of to Law of One (directly or indirectly). The other thing is that I really feel we have an awesome group of users here, and in that regard I think I would find more value in discussing it here than at other forums. (how elitist sounding! I know..) Would including other material reduce that standard? Not sure.

At any rate, something to consider.

Love and light,
Lavazza
Find all posts by this user
10-21-2009, 01:17 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-21-2009, 01:31 PM by Monica.)
#9
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
Gary's having internet issues so hasn't read this thread yet. I'll let him address the subject of changing the guidelines.

For now, I just wanted to add a bit more detail about how we arrived at our decision on the Cass. thread and my understanding of the reason for the guidelines in general.

I actually wanted to keep the thread, but maybe just lock it. Why? Because I liked the comments. The comments were pretty unanimously in agreement that the Cassiopaean material was negative. Since I felt the same way, I thought it would be good to leave the thread, for the benefit of others who might be new to the material.

But Gary pointed out to me that in so doing, we would essentially be putting a judgment on that material, if we allowed a thread that was critical of channeled work A but deleted a thread that was embracing of channeled work B. (Let's say, in this example, channeled work B was something we personally didn't like, but others on the forum did like it.)

We wanted to avoid becoming judge and jury of other channeled works. If we allowed some but not others, that is essentially what would happen.

The quick and easy solution might be to just allow them all, with no regard to their content. Does this mean that B4 would become an open forum for discussion of info that is decidedly STS? It surely would! Because there would be no provision to ever draw the line anywhere. Either the line is drawn by us, the mods, which would appear judgmental and arbitrary to those who like that particular info, or we don't draw the line at all, in which case it would become a free-for-all, just like all the other New Age forums, that discuss the myriad channeled works without any limits whatsoever.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Undoubtedly, those other forums serve a very important purpose in providing a venue for those much-needed discussions. They allow people a place to explore, compare, and discern the vast amount of channeled material available.

I know you made the suggestion to allow the discussion of other channeled works thru the lens of the Law of One. In theory, that's a great idea! If we were able to pull that off, it could be constructive without turning into the scenario I just described. But, my question is: how do we pull that off? Who gets to decide which discussions are being kept in the context of the Law of One? Who gets to make the decision when to pull the plug if it attracts some STS people who then want to turn it into a STS orgy?

These are the kinds of questions we have to consider when we think about whether or not to change the guidelines. I'm not saying they won't get changed. I'm just saying it's not quite as simple as it may appear.

The other mods and I aren't trying to wield power over what is being discussed. We'd rather not have to ever enforce the guidelines at all! That's why they're posted for everyone to see. Actually, I'm impressed at how few times we've had any issues in which action was deemed necessary. But if we were to open up a new sub-forum for the purpose of discussing other channeled works, a decision would have to be made as to whether it would be totally unregulated, or would there be any regulation at all.

If it were totally unregulated, this forum would no longer be focused on the Law of One. Our core mission would be compromised. That's pretty much inevitable, since we'd have no way to ever judge any of the content being discussed, and no safeguard to prevent disintegration of our focus.

It it were regulated, then the task of regulating it would fall to the mods. No one likes regulation. Right now, we have an easily demarcated guideline: "non-channeled ok, channeled not ok" so it's easy to enforce. (And yet it still raises questions and objections!) But if we expanded the guideline to something like "channeled ok as long as it's being discussed thru the lens of the Law of One" then it opens up a can of worms. Each post would have to be carefully monitored, and a judgment would have to be made by us, the mods. Aside from the entirely practical/logistical reason that I really don't have time to do that, I see that as a very unpleasant task. There is just no way I could please everyone! There would undoubtedly be people who would be unhappy with some of my/our decisions. (The bulk of it would fall on me as I only consult with the other mods on 'big' issues.)

We really don't want to turn this forum into something that has to be policed. But if we didn't police it, our core mission could easily get compromised.

I hope this adds some clarification as to why the guidelines are as they are!

I would like to suggest that, for those who wish to explore other channeled works, instead of bringing those channeled works into the Law of One forum, why not bring the Law of One into those other forums? How many of the followers of the Cassiopaeans info know about the Law of One? Many people get into channeled stuff because it seems cool and sexy. If, say, the Cassiopaeans info happened to be their first exposure to channeled info, then they might have a bias towards it and maybe not even explore other works. Why not offer the Law of One to them? This could easily be done without any infringement, since they're already hanging out on a public forum for the purpose of discussing various channeled works. It would be a way to offer some info that we consider to be of higher caliber than any they may have ever encountered.

Then, after we discuss the Law of One info with those who are into other channeled stuff over on their forums, we could come back here and discuss how those discussions went. We could discuss our efforts to shine the light into the dark sea of channeled info that's out there. And we might find some tasty gems along the way, which we could then share in a blog. But our discussion here at B4 could be about how we share the Law of One with those who are into other channelings, rather than the channelings themselves.

Just an idea!
Find all posts by this user
10-22-2009, 07:59 AM,
#10
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
(10-21-2009, 01:17 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  For now, I just wanted to add a bit more detail about how we arrived at our decision on the Cass. thread and my understanding of the reason for the guidelines in general.

I'm a new member so this thread was interesting to read. I have a question though: What if someone posts something that steps over the Law of Confusion boundaries -- would you delete a post/thread like that, or would you let it stay?
Find all posts by this user
10-22-2009, 12:41 PM,
#11
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
(10-22-2009, 07:59 AM)pphuck Wrote:  I'm a new member so this thread was interesting to read. I have a question though: What if someone posts something that steps over the Law of Confusion boundaries -- would you delete a post/thread like that, or would you let it stay?

Hi pphuck! Welcome to Bring4th!

It's not our intention to judge, police or censor comments.
Find all posts by this user
10-24-2009, 09:32 PM,
#12
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
I do not know if I am out of line here but i have a forum that discusses and posts various channelled information, discusses it and tries to find wisdom in the discussion of it, if anyone would like to discuss other material feel free to email me & i will give you the link.

I also have a link on my forum back here to the Bring4th Forum as I believe the LOO to be one of the most important works of channled information of our time and refer people here almost every day.
Find all posts by this user
10-25-2009, 04:16 AM,
#13
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
Monica: Thank you for your lengthy answer again, and your continued moderation of this forum

Perhaps you should implement the core reasons of your posts into the forum guidelines (just to provide some further explanation) or simply link this thread in the forum guidelines Smile
10-25-2009, 01:22 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-25-2009, 01:24 PM by Monica.)
#14
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
(10-24-2009, 09:32 PM)Enchantedwanderer Wrote:  I do not know if I am out of line here but i have a forum that discusses and posts various channelled information, discusses it and tries to find wisdom in the discussion of it, if anyone would like to discuss other material feel free to email me & i will give you the link.

Not out of line at all! Thank you for offering this invitation so that those who are interested can contact you!
(10-25-2009, 04:16 AM)ayadew Wrote:  Monica: Thank you for your lengthy answer again, and your continued moderation of this forum

Perhaps you should implement the core reasons of your posts into the forum guidelines (just to provide some further explanation) or simply link this thread in the forum guidelines Smile

Thanks ayadew! And thanks for the suggestion! We'll definitely consider that, since the topic does seem to pop up quite a bit.
Find all posts by this user
10-25-2009, 11:17 PM,
#15
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
If someone has a copy of the thread and could private message it to me, I'd be very interested to read it. I understand that since the thread has been removed, its contents may not represent ideas compatible with the rules, standards or moderation practices of this forum. Given that, I'd be willing to take it with a grain of salt but would still like to get the third party perspective about Laura's work.
Find all posts by this user
10-26-2009, 03:01 AM,
#16
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
I have a copy as the creator of the thread, sending
10-26-2009, 10:32 AM,
#17
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
Thanks to both who sent me a copy of the thread. I already felt much more comfortable with the LL material, site and community. The thread provided some reinforcement. I feel confident that without taking anything away from anyone else's spiritual path, this forum here is the right place for me now.
Find all posts by this user
10-27-2009, 05:17 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-27-2009, 10:35 PM by Steppingfeet.)
#18
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans?
Hey group,

Being part of the decision-making process that lead to the deletion of the thread in question, I have intended since the inception of this thread to offer my own input. Upon reviewing this thread however it seems that Monica has covered the bases… and done so better than I could have. So I will go through and offer what thoughts I can, without the conceit that I will be offering anything substantial.

Ayadew Wrote:Well, to all members of this forum, it is a Law of One-centered forum, although my personal opinion is that the Olio-part should not be so restrictive, because it IS in essence entirely off-topic.

I wouldn’t say that Olio is necessarily “off-topic”, though of course it can be. Rather it is a home for that which does not fit into the other forums. It is still hoped that discussion within Olio with adhere to our general focus, to one degree or another, and stay “on topic”.

Lavazza Wrote:I was following the thread with some keen interest, I am bummed that it has been deleted! I think it would be reasonable to perhaps make an amendment to the forum guidelines. While I understand that it is important not to open our Law of One forum to just any topic whatsoever (although the Olio sub-forum paradoxically seems to have been created for this purpose), I see real value in investigating other channeled sources as they relate to the Law of One.

I and the other mods see value in relating other channeling to the Law of One as well, honest. It is not that such discussion are without value, just that, for the reasons Monica enumerated, the potentials for complication and the dilution of focus outweigh the benefit of such discussion... at least according to our thinking so far.

Thr33tim3 Wrote:Still, I think it is actually good to have a place to discuss other channeled material, if only in comparison to the Ra/Quo/LOO material, because I think there is a lot to be learned through observing the differences (and similarities) in the material that has come through from different sources, like the C's, or the P's, or the H's..

There is indeed a lot to be learned. While I find the Law of One to be an invaluable ally along the spiritual path, forever infinitely helpful, there would certainly be understandings that I would have missed or overlooked or failed to emphasize if I had stuck strictly to the Law of One in my own seeking. As far as my own path goes, other sources of information have been necessary.

We can each bring the wisdom gained from other sources to the Bring4th forum discussions – quoting snippets when and where necessary and bringing to bear our perspective which has been enriched by information from other sources of channeled material – but devoting whole threads to the analysis and evaluation of other sources… while there are exceptions… is generally not a good idea for reasons Monica provided.

Monica Wrote:In every case, the decision was not taken lightly. Our policy is that all the moderators discuss the issue and make a decision together. That way, it isn't up to one person, although I usually have the honors of carrying out the action.

We actually agonize over these decisions! Sometimes it takes us several days of emailing and discussing by phone, weighing out the pros and cons.

I will confirm everything Monica has said here. Decisions regarding the deletion of a thread are often discussed at length, whether by email, phone, or both, and usually involve some amount of distress on our parts.

In fact, Monica contacted me about the original Casseopeian thread on a Saturday or Friday, I believe, and it wasn’t until the following Thursday that I had the full conversation with her over the phone about the thread (though a few emails were exchanged between) because I couldn't gain any clarity about the situation. When two seemingly exclusive arguments co-exist side by side without one winning over the other or a synthesis made of the two, tension and stress result. : )


Monica Wrote:Our prime directive is to honor the guidelines, whose prime directive is to keep our forum focused on our core mission of discussing the Law of One, as envisioned by Carla.

Well said!

That is truly the mandate of the moderator: to enforce the guidelines with compassion for each involved.

Interpreting and applying those guidelines, as Steve and I have learned and as Monica has long known, is none too easy a task.

Monica Wrote:…please know that our intention is to be as allowing as possible, rather than restrictive.

Yes yes!

Monica Wrote:That's not to say that the guidelines won't ever be changed! But, for now, this is what we are working with and I hope you can all understand that we want to be fair and consistent. <snip> We are always open to suggestion and discussion!

Totally. The guidelines, like the US Constitution, are not ironclad and set it stone. They can be modified and adopted to the “times”.

Anyone who so desires may discuss the appropriateness of any and all guidelines. Olio would probably be the place for it.

Should the moderators find that alternative thought sufficient to modify the guidelines has been proposed, well then, modified the guidelines will be!

Lavazza Wrote:I agree with ayadew, I think the heart of the matter is in the forum guidelines. It would be so great to have a sub-forum for other material, for two reasons. First that as ayadew just mentioned there are a lot of great sources out there and they speak of to Law of One (directly or indirectly). The other thing is that I really feel we have an awesome group of users here, and in that regard I think I would find more value in discussing it here than at other forums. (how elitist sounding! I know..) Would including other material reduce that standard? Not sure.

Thank you, Lavazza, for the way in which, Ayadew, and the others have so respectfully expressed your disagreement.

I essentially agree with your reasoning about a) other great sources and b) the caliber of the discussion here, as do Steve and Monica, BUT… there are all those reasons against which the moderators cannot successfully overcome, most of which are listed below in Monica’s exquisite grasp of the situation:

(I’ll add a couple of my own thoughts below Monica’s.)

Monica Wrote:The quick and easy solution might be to just allow them all, with no regard to their content. Does this mean that B4 would become an open forum for discussion of info that is decidedly STS? It surely would! Because there would be no provision to ever draw the line anywhere. Either the line is drawn by us, the mods, which would appear judgmental and arbitrary to those who like that particular info, or we don't draw the line at all, in which case it would become a free-for-all, just like all the other New Age forums, that discuss the myriad channeled works without any limits whatsoever.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Undoubtedly, those other forums serve a very important purpose in providing a venue for those much-needed discussions. They allow people a place to explore, compare, and discern the vast amount of channeled material available.

I know you made the suggestion to allow the discussion of other channeled works thru the lens of the Law of One. In theory, that's a great idea! If we were able to pull that off, it could be constructive without turning into the scenario I just described. But, my question is: how do we pull that off? Who gets to decide which discussions are being kept in the context of the Law of One? Who gets to make the decision when to pull the plug if it attracts some STS people who then want to turn it into a STS orgy?

The other mods and I aren't trying to wield power over what is being discussed. We'd rather not have to ever enforce the guidelines at all!

If it were totally unregulated, this forum would no longer be focused on the Law of One. Our core mission would be compromised. That's pretty much inevitable, since we'd have no way to ever judge any of the content being discussed, and no safeguard to prevent disintegration of our focus.

It it were regulated, then the task of regulating it would fall to the mods. No one likes regulation. Right now, we have an easily demarcated guideline: "non-channeled ok, channeled not ok" so it's easy to enforce. (And yet it still raises questions and objections!) But if we expanded the guideline to something like "channeled ok as long as it's being discussed thru the lens of the Law of One" then it opens up a can of worms. Each post would have to be carefully monitored, and a judgment would have to be made by us, the mods. Aside from the entirely practical/logistical reason that I really don't have time to do that, I see that as a very unpleasant task. There is just no way I could please everyone! There would undoubtedly be people who would be unhappy with some of my/our decisions.(The bulk of it would fall on me as I only consult with the other mods on 'big' issues.)

First I would note that the bulk of the work would indeed fall upon Monica’s shoulders as she is the primary active moderator.

Here is a recapitulation of Monica’s points as I see it:

1) Complete and total absence of regulation will not work because:
  • a. the polarity of the discussion will most certainly be compromised
    b. the focus will be lost

2) On the other hand, over-regulation will also not work because:
  • a. it will stifle the free flow of energies moving through these forums
    b. create daily headaches for the moderators
    c. lead to loads of arbitrary decision making

3) The trick and the balance is to create an environment within which free discussion is encouraged and promoted while the (key word) focus is maintained.

4) Monica adds, and I agree: a forum for the discussion of other channeled material has great merit, BUT how do we make that work in terms of the challenges Monica listed?

I will add my own take on three other thoughts Monica has already put forth:

5) FOCUS. In order to study, to look at, to become aware of, to discuss, or to interact with anything in this world, FOCUS is a necessary prerequisite. As with the camera lens, one must target that which they wish to place the attention upon.

Focus necessarily implies exclusion of that which is not focused upon. The challenge for the guidelines and the moderators is for the focus to be as inclusive as possible without blurring and eventually losing the image.

What will keep the image sharp and what will produce blurriness is a matter of subjective opinion, I admit. For the time being, the opinion of the moderators is that most “outside” channeled material will result in the reduction of focus and the blurring of the image.

Should the moderators become convinced that focus (upon the Confederation principles and philosophy) can indeed be maintained with the inclusion of subject matter such as “outside” channeling, then we can revise the guidelines.

6) JUDGMENT. As I mentioned earlier in this post, I was wracking my brain in the attempt to find a middle ground solution to the Casseeopean (much easier to spell phonetically!).

The tipping point for Monica and me in favor of deleting the thread came in the form of realizing that Q’uo’s characteristic stance when asked questions about the value, the worth, and/or the polarity of other sources of information is to refrain from judgment.

Generally speaking, Q’uo refrains from offering any commentary beyond saying that it is to the seeker’s discernment to determine such things for the self.

While the moderators are not necessarily responsible for the content of the forums’ postings, we thought it would be well if the forums reflected this general attitude of abstention from judgment towards other material.

If another source of channeled information was reviewed critically and the material labeled "mixed" or "negative" - even if the moderators agreed - we (as a forum collective) would be communicating to others a certain judgment. This would be detrimental for two primary reasons:
  • a. One who is attempting to learn about and understand the Confederation material might develop a bad taste in the mouth if the conclusion was reached that students of the material were elitist and judgmental, minimizing other sources of information in light of the Law of One.

    Thus if one attempted to judge the Law of One material by its fruits within the minds of those studying the material, the Law of One would be tarnished and misrepresented.

    b. It could lead to division and separation between proponents of the channeled source of information being critiqued and proponents of the Law of One. Perhaps going so far as to attract proponents of the critiqued material to the forums in order to do battle, so to speak, and refute all claims which do not uphold their cherished material.

7) DEPTH. The reason that the Confederation, along with so many other teachers and sources, recommend that the entity find one basic system of thought and stick with it is due to the function of depth. In order to go deeper within any given system - integrating its understandings into the life experience through application, trial and error, resonance and dissonance - it is necessary to work consistently within that basic system of thought over a period of time without major deviation.

Of course we need not shut our eyes to other information! On the contrary it is helpful to continually examine our system of thought in light of new information which we encounter, discarding that which has become the stumbling block and embracing a new synthesis of deeper understanding. But a sustained focus and consistency of study and application are absolutely indispensable prerequisites of depth.

If one is constantly fascinated by this wave or that wave upon the surface of the ocean, one is not going to stay put long enough to plunge into the depths awaiting just below the self. Same holds true with our discussion on this forum. The more consistently we can work within a general system of thought, the deeper we may mine it for understanding.

That system of thought need not be airtight and sealed from external influence, but it also need not be one toy among many in the toy box - to be enjoyed as the mood suited. While the latter configuration is perfectly acceptable, it is does not lend itself to deeper understanding.



And that about sums up the thinking of the moderators on this matter. If a sound and compelling counter-argument exists, the moderators would be happy to review the situation and adjust the guidelines accordingly.

In your service,
Gary

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
10-27-2009, 07:08 PM,
#19
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
Greetings sisters and brothers,

The only point I would like to emphasise is that the Cassiopaeans claimed that the Ra material came from them and I would like for that claim to be openly discussed on this particular forum!!!

Jim
Find all posts by this user
10-27-2009, 08:00 PM,
#20
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
After having been allowed to peek at the removed thread, I agree with the moderators' decisions here.

There may well be great value for some people in a forum like the one Enchantedwanderer mentioned, where a variety of channeled material is discussed, compared, integrated or constrasted as the case may be.

Without taking anything away from that, the volume of material from L/L Research is more than enough to support a nicely active discussion forum, with rules that limits any channeled discussion to what has come forth through Carla and her team.

I would like to see and participate in a forum that specifically takes a look at a variety of channeled material from a Law of One perspective. Perhaps even with a sub-forum that limits discussion to material Carla has mentioned or that affirms the value of Carla's work. But I question the wisdom of trying to make this site the home for such a forum.

Realistically, such a forum would probably attract a high volume of traffic and need a correspondingly high volume of moderation. For example, it took several days for me to even an account on the David Wilcox forums, and it's been another couple of days with no response about whether or not my first post was approved. That was just for the forum of that one prolific author. Laura's own forum is also very busy and has its own quite distinctive tone.

Now think of a forum that discussed a perspective on those busy forums, while also trying to keep positive, on-topic discussion flowing about another dozen "most likely suspects" for relevance. Add a potential flood of dozens more things that people happen to have stumbled across, and like to chat about without any deeper consideration of the message. Add another bump in traffic for whoever happens to be on Coast to Coast or an exiting cable TV documentary, whether or not there is any depth to the message, or whether it fits in with the Law of One material.

If not well moderated, a "catch-all" could turn into either a popularity contest or a pissing contest - neither of them a sure path to spiritual enlightenment. If well moderated, it could be so demanding on time, so fast paced and so caught up in the excitement of the moment, that the personal, friendly tone and thoughtful pace of this site would be lost.

Would the moderators here be open to Enchantedwanderer posting the link here, in case people would like to explore a "compare & contrast" forum, without making any endorsement of another site's contents? Or should it be up to those interested to request the link via private message?
Find all posts by this user
10-27-2009, 08:28 PM,
#21
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
(10-27-2009, 07:08 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote:  The only point I would like to emphasise is that the Cassiopaeans claimed that the Ra material came from them and I would like for that claim to be openly discussed on this particular forum!!!

I'm not sure any discussion is necessary...that claim can be easily and summarily dispensed with quite quickly just by reading the introduction to Book 1, here.

To summarize, for the purpose of accuracy: Nope, the Law of One didn't come from the Cassiopaeans. In fact, I don't recall the Cassiopaeans ever being mentioned in the Law of One; nor is that term found in the index.

There, that was easy! Wink
Find all posts by this user
10-28-2009, 12:07 AM,
#22
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
(10-27-2009, 08:00 PM)Questioner Wrote:  Would the moderators here be open to Enchantedwanderer posting the link here, in case people would like to explore a "compare & contrast" forum, without making any endorsement of another site's contents? Or should it be up to those interested to request the link via private message?

So as not to openly cross any lines of self promotion or inappropriateness I have put the link to the forum on my Bring4th Profile, anyone wishing to visit the forum can view my profile and get it from there. Member approval can take anything from 1 hour to 3 days at the moment as I am the only one approving them however you do not have to be a member to read the topics, just to respond to them Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
10-28-2009, 12:10 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-28-2009, 12:11 AM by Monica.)
#23
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
(10-28-2009, 12:07 AM)Enchantedwanderer Wrote:  So as not to openly cross any lines of self promotion or inappropriateness I have put the link to the forum on my Bring4th Profile, anyone wishing to visit the forum can view my profile and get it from there. Member approval can take anything from 1 hour to 3 days at the moment as I am the only one approving them however you do not have to be a member to read the topics, just to respond to them Big Grin

Perfect! Thanks, Enchanted!

With all this talk about forum guidelines, I'd like to remind everyone that posting a link to this or that is not against forum guidelines. We just avoid showcasing entire threads/discussions to 'other' channeled sources. But our forum is riddled with lots of links to lots of other stuff. We don't usually censor links offered in passing as part of a discussion.
Find all posts by this user
11-28-2009, 02:08 PM,
#24
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
I am adding some comments made by our moderator Steve, in response to another thread about HH that got deleted:

(11-24-2009, 10:33 AM)Bring4th_Steve Wrote:  There is a LOT of mixed polarity information out there. And one of the tactics that I've seen from the negative elite is that they will regurgitate information of the light, so that the reader will feel attracted to author of the information, and then *POW!* The author will slap the reader with condescension or more information that is hardly light-based.

In this case, we have a lot of LOO material cited to help this character become "qualified" by the readers. Notice all the positive instructions offered, including the mention of being STO 50% of the time (which is really supposed to be 51%, otherwise you have not made any choice!).

I ask all of you to please be very careful when reading material out there, and learn to quickly identify the pattern of, "I love you, I love you, you are wrong, I love you, I love you".

The negative energies are doing anything they can at this point, including riding into message forums in a trojan horse made of "light", but opening up once in your heart with dis-information.

It's nice that the ATS link was posted for others to see, but we are not looking to "host" hidden hand's words here. Please remember to be sensitive not to detune Bring4th with negative material, per the posting guidelines.

Thanks,
Steve
Find all posts by this user
11-28-2009, 03:23 PM,
#25
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
Good idea monica Smile
12-13-2009, 11:15 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-13-2009, 11:17 PM by Memorandem.)
#26
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
(10-27-2009, 07:08 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote:  The only point I would like to emphasise is that the Cassiopaeans claimed that the Ra material came from them and I would like for that claim to be openly discussed on this particular forum!!!

I don't remember the Cassiopaeans saying this. The Cassiopaeans are 6D, Ra is 7D. The Cassiopaeans, IIRC, stated specifically, that Ra was one density above them. (and I think the primary difference between the channels is not the orientation, but the types of information they were willing to discuss)

Problem is, I've heard many unsubstantiated claims about the Cassiopaeans in the aftermath of my post. Some state what they believe, but leave us to either trust them blindly or search through reams of material to find the answer (FYI, the cassiopaean transcripts can be found online free, if you do some searching. PM me).

Whenever someone makes a statement about Ra, they are able to pull out a quote or someone else will have the quote at hand. But no one seems to have quoted Cassiopaea since I posted that thread.

So it looks to me that the reaction to my post was primarily negative as well as misleading for anyone who wanted an honest, verifiable answer. (Also, I had no intention of discussing the integrity of the Cassiopaea material - why did the discussion suddenly turn to people expressing their opinions, most of them being negative? Why the sudden importance of opinion more than knowledge and information?)

Can we be a bit more objective!? Just because someone else "feels" that it's negative doesn't mean it will be negative for everyone else - and that is the nature of feeling. Feelings are always relative to the self, subjective, and aren't helpful in determining what is and what is not. In order to coexist with peers peacefully, we must be aware of emotions, but in order to evolve as a whole we must be objective, and our emotions by nature won't always agree with that. And, sometimes we mistake emotion for intuition...

I don't intend to do harm - I want to learn, and my understanding is that if I'm wrong, another learner will be able to point out the flaws in my understanding, for our mutual benefit.

Anyways, I wanted to ask a question:

If we simply post a quote of the Cassiopaean material to discuss the information and concepts as relates to the LOO, and refrain from making generalizations on the material's orientation and integrity, is that okay?

- Memorandem
You are you
I am me
We are we;
That makes three
When someone is hurt,
We all feel pain
To learn this is key
to playing the game
Poem by my bro, edited by me.
Find all posts by this user
12-13-2009, 11:26 PM,
#27
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
Ra is 6D
I would request for all of those reading my words, please guard well your thoughts. If my words resonate, then by all means take them and use them as you can. If they do not resonate, please let them fall away like water does from a ducks back, and move on. Love/Light, Adonai.
Find all posts by this user
12-13-2009, 11:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-13-2009, 11:37 PM by Memorandem.)
#28
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
If that is so, then I find it somewhat disturbing that I've thought it was 7D all this time.

EDIT: There was some discussion of Ra by the Cassiopaeans, having to do with densities, or maybe I'm just blowing smoke.

- Memorandem
You are you
I am me
We are we;
That makes three
When someone is hurt,
We all feel pain
To learn this is key
to playing the game
Poem by my bro, edited by me.
Find all posts by this user
12-13-2009, 11:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-14-2009, 12:04 AM by Monica.)
#29
RE: laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines
(12-13-2009, 11:15 PM)Memorandem Wrote:  I've heard many unsubstantiated claims about the Cassiopaeans in the aftermath of my post.

Not sure which post you are referring to. Since you hadn't previously posted in this thread, I assume you meant in the original thread (the one that got deleted).

(12-13-2009, 11:15 PM)Memorandem Wrote:  Whenever someone makes a statement about Ra, they are able to pull out a quote or someone else will have the quote at hand. But no one seems to have quoted Cassiopaea since I posted that thread.

No posts have been edited or censored. It's likely that you see more quoting of the Law of One because this is a forum dedicated to the study of the Law of One! Wink

(12-13-2009, 11:15 PM)Memorandem Wrote:  So it looks to me that the reaction to my post was primarily negative as well as misleading for anyone who wanted an honest, verifiable answer. (Also, I had no intention of discussing the integrity of the Cassiopaea material - why did the discussion suddenly turn to people expressing their opinions, most of them being negative? Why the sudden importance of opinion more than knowledge and information?)

The original thread about the Cassiopaeans was deleted, in accordance with forum guidelines. This thread then popped up, discussing why the first thread had been deleted. So, this evolved into a discussion about opinions expressed about the other discussion! (as well as the forum guidelines.)

(12-13-2009, 11:15 PM)Memorandem Wrote:  Can we be a bit more objective!? Just because someone else "feels" that it's negative doesn't mean it will be negative for everyone else - and that is the nature of feeling.

Agreed. That's why the moderators aspire to make decisions based on the forum guidelines, rather than our own personal opinions about the subject matter.

(12-13-2009, 11:15 PM)Memorandem Wrote:  Feelings are always relative to the self, subjective, and aren't helpful in determining what is and what is not. In order to coexist with peers peacefully, we must be aware of emotions, but in order to evolve as a whole we must be objective, and our emotions by nature won't always agree with that. And, sometimes we mistake emotion for intuition...

That could be debatable! Actually, that might make a great topic for a new thread, being that Q'uo talks a great deal about feelings/emotions/resonance.

(12-13-2009, 11:15 PM)Memorandem Wrote:  If we simply post a quote of the Cassiopaean material to discuss the information and concepts as relates to the LOO, and refrain from making generalizations on the material's orientation and integrity, is that okay?

Please see post #23 of this thread.
Find all posts by this user
12-14-2009, 11:00 AM,
#30
Moderators, a suggestion
I think there is some confusion about how the forum guidelines relate to channeled material from sources other than L/L Research. Would it be fruitful for the distilled forum policy learnings from the Cassiopean thread to be summarized and posted in the topmost forum policies area? I picture something like, "Read this before posting channeled materials."

I tried to follow the guidelines with my brief citation of the Michael material in the Disinterested thread. Was this in line with the guidelines?
Find all posts by this user




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)