>>> She allowed it to be spread, and failed to take responsibility for
>>> this action as well.
>>
>> The copyright wasn't taking responsibility? The publication of the
>> first edition of the Blue Book wasn't taking responsibility?
>
> I defined what I consider taking responsibiliity. She didn't. That you
> don't agree isn't my problem.
No, that you are babbling like a lunatic is *your* problem. Copyrighting
something and seeing to its publication is not passively "allowing it to
be spread", but actively spreading. You are failing to make even minimal
sense.
> I take responsibility for what I do. If I've broken some law, call the
> authorities. If you've been offended by what I do, tough shit.
If you don't like me calling you on your bigotry and unreason, tough
shit.
>> This is, of course, utterly idiotic. One might better argue that not
>> understanding what they channel is evidence that it is really
>> channeling.
>
> If you want to argue that, fine. How far do you allow that argument to
> extend and on what basis do you cut it off. You are persistent in
> arguing that the course can be understood by sticking to what it says.
> Maybe all these contrarian views are channeled as well.
You are babbling insanely once again. How does one "channel" a contrarian
view? How does one channel a view at all? Channeling involves words.
> You have
> allowed this possibility. Or is your view that the course can be
> understood by sticking to what it says channeled?
The above sentence not English is.
> And you are? LOL. We're each in a position to judge for ourselves.
> We're each entitled to express that judgement. What's your problem?
> Are you running for the chief judgeship?
My problem is that you are expressing your religious bigotry in a place
where it isn't appropriate. Also, you are sounding like a raving loon,
but that's really more your problem. Clearly, you are not being
forthright. You have not honestly put on the table what's really bugging
you.
