10-30-2013, 08:31 PM
The situation is this:
1. Person A makes a statement.
2. Person B makes a statement indicating that they feel "attacked" in some way by Person A's statement.
3. Person A then perceives Person B's interpretation. However, Person A makes another statement that is not softer than the initial statement and there is little external manifestation that Person A is concerned about Person B's feelings.
This interaction is catalyst. It is an opportunity for growth and balance for both parties A and B. I think we've all been A, and we've all been B. It's a common enough situation that I think it's useful to ponder. I think I basically see this sort of thing in a non-trivial amount of threads on bring4th and they can be used for useful learning if so desired. Probably the best example of this happening repeatedly is 12/21/2012: David Wilcock...
1. Person A makes a statement.
2. Person B makes a statement indicating that they feel "attacked" in some way by Person A's statement.
3. Person A then perceives Person B's interpretation. However, Person A makes another statement that is not softer than the initial statement and there is little external manifestation that Person A is concerned about Person B's feelings.
This interaction is catalyst. It is an opportunity for growth and balance for both parties A and B. I think we've all been A, and we've all been B. It's a common enough situation that I think it's useful to ponder. I think I basically see this sort of thing in a non-trivial amount of threads on bring4th and they can be used for useful learning if so desired. Probably the best example of this happening repeatedly is 12/21/2012: David Wilcock...