People just aren't satisfied to overlook what is becoming plain as day to them. When the words and the intentions don't match, we call foul. When we detect ulterior motives, we call foul. When we see Machiavelli's hand, we call foul. When we see excuses which don't ring true, we call foul. When we see justifications for actions which don't match the energy out put, we call foul. When we encounter silence where there should be explanation, we call foul. When the innuendo is clearly discernible, we call foul. When someone calls foul, and we detect their discernment is off, we call foul. When we hear "stop calling foul, because the guidelines say such and such, we call foul.
Why do we call foul? Because the new structures don't permit the same old BS to slide on through, riding on the coattails of more BS. If someone uses a threat of harsh repercussion from societal laws, as a cover for doing what they wanted to do all along, that's a foul. If someone is talking to another and slyly says "hmmm, that could be construed as sexual harassment, nudge, nudge, wink,wink" and the other says "Hmmm, I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, it did make me feel a little uncomfortable.....what should I do???", to which Macho-ivelli replies, "well, I can't tell you what to do, but I'd at least report it to the Admin staff, because you don't want it on your conscience if someone actually gets hurt"
The formerly hidden energetic by-plays are no longer hidden as they were. They may not be an open book yet, but enough so that if you smell a rat, you call foul, or rat, as the case may be.
Now lets say this report finds the eyes and ears of some admin staff who were already clearly predisposed to react in a certain way, and suppose that there are people chattering away with their noise in his or her ear, and it's easy to assign responsibility to the rules instead of personal decisions, and you can get an action, to which people may call foul, because an energetic imprint is left, which is in support of suppositions and expectations, and assumptions, and a preponderance of the evidence.
In other words, if what is presented by others doesn't match our perceptions, then a foul becomes suspected. And we aren't just little sheep who will shut up and wait and see whether gross injustice is being covered up or not. We ARE learning from our mistakes. We would now handle the aftermath of 911 differently. We would understand the responsibility inherent in complicit or tacit or passive consent. If we do nothing, we are as responsible as the perpetrator. The same can be said, and is being thought by some on one side of perceived issues in relation to this situation or another. You might say, "well if I hadn't done what I did, then I'd be responsible for the outcome too". True enough, but what did you do, and why? How would you like to have been treated had the situations been reversed? Would you want someone to use an accusation as an excuse to pull the rug out as they'd been hoping to be able to do all along, or would you want them to recuse themselves and give it over to someone impartial to deal with? Would you have wanted an opportunity to defend yourself? Would you have wanted to see the evidence used to make you vanish?
I have not seen much in the way of honest disclosure on this issue. Nobody is talking any facts. And those who were working behind the scenes in (they thought) secrecy, are detectable by their energetic residue left behind.
We are learning to use our rusty senses and perceptions again, and we are experiencing having the old density compressed structures inflated with a little space and air, so we can discern them better. And as this happens, we can't just write off what we perceive, like we used to. Lying doesn't work anymore. innuendo demands explanation. veiled threats are missed on no one anymore. agendas shine through actions taken in compliance with the rules and guidelines. In other words, if you do a nasty deed, even though you didn't spell it out in plain language, or didn't contravene any of the published rules, you are going to get called out on it.
In an earlier post on this thread, I pointed out that the guidelines have become antiquated. They are part of a dissolving structure, which has no energetic support anymore. Don't address the individual...address the content of their posts. Uh. nope. because the content of their posts may have little to do with the content of their intention or energetic projections. The guidelines will change, or people will be banned. Because that old structure of "we go by what was said, not by what you think was meant" is dead. We now know what was meant, and we will go by that, and ban me all you want because I don't want to play in the old structures anymore. That's why I'm writing the new scripts, along with all of you.
I know the mod arguments that you HAVE to have some structure and rules, or the whole place goes to S**T. All the going to S**T that I've seen has been more about people in the middle of working something out, being interfered with for their own, and the forums good. It simply doesn't work, and hasn't for some time.
We are authoring the new reality right now. We have to hold the new structures in place so the old ones can fall away. It's up to us, to change reality, and Avalon is one of the places which has been grown up as just such a proving grounds for the new structures. The 5D structures.
Don't ask me "so how then are we supposed to do it"? We already are. enforcement of the old structures is jumped all over and made fun of and picked at and pestered and laughed and joked about and teased and innuendoed towards and generally poked and prodded to let it know it's time has passed and we are looking for new ways of doing things. Look at annemirri for example. She's fully using the new structures already, and some, including me were surprised. She hasn't given the rules of engagement as contained in the guidelines a second thought that I can see, and yet she's left completely alone in her challenges of what's being presented failing to match what she perceives. It's a beautiful thing, unless you and your "story" are the one in the cross hairs of someone elses "say what" challenge.
Many here noticed the animosity towards Abraxasinas and his Thuban stuff, and how those harbouring the animosity tried to make it official. they then noticed the moves made in this regard. they also noticed the energetic comings and goings behind the scenes. the attitude of "we're not being intolerant...look, we're giving him his own little space where the real people don't have to be bothered with his dangerous Bulls**t". Who cares if it's dangerous bulls**t. Bill Deagle receives official recognition here. Are we to pretend that Abraxasinas saying Dragondom was imminent is more dangerous than Deagle claiming Nukes would be hitting American cities at any moment or any of his other plethora of Bulls**t? The main difference that I can see, is nobody who takes exception to Bill Deagles forecasts is carrying the good ole ban stick around with them.
Was there sexual harassment? I don't know. Was there a campaign to oust Abraxasinas? Absolutely. Was one used to justify the other? You tell me. I'm all ears. My perception tells me a foul has occurred. Which doesn't speak to the sexual harassment issue in anyway, but completely aside from it. I believe Abraxasinas and a great majority of Avalonians have been deprived of an experiment which could have resulted in even greater heights of discernment ability, than the interaction has already produced.
This energetic exchange, in this environment, with these participants can never be recreated elsewhere, so don't try getting away with the BS that "his followers can simply follow him where ever he takes it from here". You'd be assuming erroneously for one thing that those following the goings on, were followers. I've seen it claimed by some of the dimmer ones deigning to make comment that those opposed to this action against Abraxasinas were supporters or somehow followers of him. Please hit the loud "wrong answer" buzzer now. (I can't phonetically spell it. lol)
Personally, I was watching the whole play for the specific purpose of what will participants be able to discern from this encounter, and how will a dispute over "we want that here....vs....we don't want that here" be settled. In the new ways of doing things openly and with a clean heart, or in the old way, of double dealing, back stabbing, whining in the PTB's ears, I'm only following the rules, doin' my duty, "it's what the majority want", we don't allow YOUR kind around here.....way.
So how'd we do? Does that new smell a little like the old?