Re: [ET2] Damage

At 06:11 PM 5/29/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Well, this is really interesting. I didn't recognise this subject line as
>one I was involved in and as the unread total in my inbox currently stands
>at 138(!!) I didn't pick it up when scanning new emails. So, it's odd now
>I've been drawn to check it out to find that I am in fact involved - a
>weird feeling to have been discussed in my electronic absence, as it were
>:-)) Odd also that I was drawn to check it out. Not at the intellect
>level, that bit of prompting.

Linda, It was my energy wanting to understand more from you that drew you
to find these emails.

>Now for my own input - this is really quite an intriguing and thought
>provoking issue. You see first of all I have to assert that, part of
>humanity or not, the sisterhood is way different to the manhood bunch.
>(Hands up all those girls who agree).

This is my view and only my view, they are different if you look at it from
the right/left brain male/female view. I don't I look at it a different way
using a different frame/model. But from what I've been informed on this
group we are to take everything back to the frame/model of Energy,
Emotrance and Even Flow. From that POV it is way less than useful to
separate humanity out. Does Energy, ET or Even Flow work structurally
different in women than in men? If so, then it's not just an energy. I
think it works the same way in all humanity-That's just me.

> Also my love to all was 'to all' with only a special mention to the
> sisterhood who etc. In that respect I do not see how I have excluded
> anyone in my 'love to'. It's just the same as saying - especially to Doc
> for sharing etc. Surely there's no difference in having an 'especially'
> for a target group than for an individual and that's done all the time on
> these lists.
>Thank you Silvia for stating on my behalf that no distinction was
>intended. You are absolutely correct.

Linda, I agree I wasn't speaking of your intention you were aware of. (I
would not have had to energy test.) I was speaking of one's that you
weren't aware of. And that you state you have asked the universe for more
information in that regards.

>However having said that I may detect in myself a smidgen of female
>exclusiveness in my views on sexual fuck-ups. I am a little taken aback at
>the full frontal-ness of Doc Housten's comments ( I thought this was such
>a nice group :-o)
>- wonder what the energy testing will come up with on that comment!

It would probably depend on who's idea of nice we were using. As far as
full frontal-ness I don't think it would have been nice of me to sneak upon
someone and spring my honesty using innuendo without being totally up front
about it. I do use innuendo and humor sometimes to present a point.

My belief here (subject to change) is, and I'm generalizing, is one part of
humanity has arranged their energy system where they believe they are being
honest when they bet around the bush hoping to not offend/hurt someone's
feeling. They don't say what the honestly feel they just imply and expect
the other to understand.

Another part of humanity doesn't beat around the bush so to speak because
their energy system has been set to say what they perceive to be
honest. Usually neither one is aware that it isn't real/right or wrong it
is just the way they've arranged their energies.

>snipped abunch of really good material.

Linda, I got a lot out of what you shared. (it verified some of the energy
testing I did, thanks) I'm glad you allowed me to channel the universe to
you even if it wasn't the way that you would have preferred.

I'm curious, I think this can be a fascinating inquiry, how do you define
the word "Love" not unconditional at first just "love"? And then what's
the difference between "love" and "unconditional love"? (anyone?)

Need Nothing, Desire Everything, Choose What Shows Up,
Enjoy Life-It's ALL Information, Utilize It ALL,
Doc Houston

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

           
Received on Thu May 29 2003 - 13:19:44 BST