Your intention was revealed with the word "but"
and what came after.

"You know, I'm really not trying to cause trouble.
But..."

The difference is I am sharing info that others in this forum are interested in that YOU may interpret as negative. Interpretations are subjective. What one finds negative another finds positive. The notions of positivity and negativity are not universally shared.

Information sharing is relative to awareness. People in the times of Nazi Germany were being warned by a few aware people who were able to see beyond the social engineering of their day. I am sure that they might have been seen by some (or pointed out by agents) as negative from a narrow focused awareness but upon further inspection their views were actually quite postive, especially for those who listened and got out of dodge.

Perhaps in this larger view of awareness, one could see your continual goading of people in this forum and the info that they share is actually what many would consider negative. At least by those who are open to viewing all kinds of information and making up their own minds. Attempting to shame those with views of dissent is actually "negative" whereas sharing mere info for others to inspect and accept or reject is positive.

Surely you comprehend the difference?

But then we both know that you do. ;-)

I, and others on this forum, find dot connecting quite a positive act. However, I find the continual goading of people, in an attempt to set up an environment where the sharing of critical info from the field is positioned as "negative" an act likely fueled by negative intentions.


The spin continues. I see much effort on your part to influence but so far little resonance.

Surely you don't think that my self esteem can be leveraged so easily with such spin tactics and perceptual maneuvers?

Better take it up a few notches. ;-)

You know, I'm really not trying to cause trouble.
But couldnt your post be considered negative as well?
How is your negativity towards whatever you dislike any better than anyone elses?
I would think with a name like 'Innercalm', we should expect something just a little more positive from you.
But, whats in a name I guess eh?

**********************

OK, let's take a look at the tactics you're using to try to undermine IC's creditabiity on this forum:

"I would think with a name like 'Innercalm', we should expect something just a little more positive from you.
But, whats in a name I guess eh?"

Yikes!!! What place is there for personal attacks and digs like that on a discussion forum???? A dig like that is far more negative than anyone pointing out what they believe to be the truth and letting the rest of us come to our own conclusions.

Yet you've chosen an anonymous number for a name ... food for thought.

"You know, I'm really not trying to cause trouble."

I beg to differ, given the number of judgmental statements and personal attacks you've made; it's all documented in previous posts.