If I may interject a brief observation followed by a question. Observation: I am a simple man, with a simple mind and, quite frankly, I keep getting lost in all the words being bandied about here.
Now, my question to Q (hello again dear friend, hope the vacations aren't taking too much of a toll on such a fine, elderly gentleman), am I correct in summarizing the issue that you want to discuss as follows:
"If a person, call him/her Ishkabibil, DW, or even Arthur (extra points if you get that pun, it helps if you have young children) claims to be performing their life's work from within the broadly defined framework of the Law of One, (as laid out by Ra, the Humble Messenger of the Law of One), but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One (or indeed may even appear to undermine some aspect of the Law of One) then, especially, given that the person is a public figure (as are Ishkabibil, DW, and Arthur, well public figure or at least cartoon characters), are they indeed providing a valuable service worthy of our time and attention?"
Ooops, looks like I'm guilty of over-complicating it myself. Let me try once again, with a more efficient use of words:
"If a person claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One then, especially given that the person is a public figure, are they indeed providing a valuable service, worthy of our time and attention?"
I suggest that we agree first on a simple statement, such as this, that represents the crux of the issue. With that accomplished, I think it will be much easier to discuss it. Is this the real question that you want to address, dear friend, or have I failed at distilling the issue?
3D Sunset
Now, my question to Q (hello again dear friend, hope the vacations aren't taking too much of a toll on such a fine, elderly gentleman), am I correct in summarizing the issue that you want to discuss as follows:
"If a person, call him/her Ishkabibil, DW, or even Arthur (extra points if you get that pun, it helps if you have young children) claims to be performing their life's work from within the broadly defined framework of the Law of One, (as laid out by Ra, the Humble Messenger of the Law of One), but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One (or indeed may even appear to undermine some aspect of the Law of One) then, especially, given that the person is a public figure (as are Ishkabibil, DW, and Arthur, well public figure or at least cartoon characters), are they indeed providing a valuable service worthy of our time and attention?"
Ooops, looks like I'm guilty of over-complicating it myself. Let me try once again, with a more efficient use of words:
"If a person claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One then, especially given that the person is a public figure, are they indeed providing a valuable service, worthy of our time and attention?"
I suggest that we agree first on a simple statement, such as this, that represents the crux of the issue. With that accomplished, I think it will be much easier to discuss it. Is this the real question that you want to address, dear friend, or have I failed at distilling the issue?
3D Sunset