Shannon's Journal Discussion

[Catman]

"A" stands for "aura," which is the energetic field responsible for communicating a lot of information to other people, so I assume he's tuning the aura programming. Still an aura non-believer?

You misunderstood me, maybe reading too far into my words too.

All I wanted to know is why he is using the AOSI term again. That confused me, and with talks of him making spin-off programs I wanted to understand this.

I'm not sure I did, but whatever you say, dude. Seems Shannon's response was inline with my own - the last part, well, that's something I added, as I remember you saying as much in the past. But whatevs!

I don't understand your hostility to me on something so small and irrelevant. You must be reading into it, because it was a simple question about a name, that's it. Period.

A simple question about a name. That's all it was.

I asked why this "AOSI tuning" term was used in Shannon's journal, I thought it was called DMSI now. I just wanted to see why and if it meant another branch off program like what he's posted about in another thread for DMRI and DMSRI...talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. That was a new term to me "AOSI tuning". It had nothing to do with my views on "auras" from awhile back that you brought up. It was a simple question about the NAME, not some debate.

No reason for snark thrown at me twice today for zero reason.

I guess this is one of those times text comes across so different than normal or something. It was LITERALLY a simple question about a name.

A simple question about a name.

That's it, that's all. It wasn't some dig, or a troll, or some nonsense. It was a simple obvious normal question about differing names that I wanted clarified, that was completely normal to ask.

I hope it's clear now.

There was no hostility, and then you "called me out," for whatever reason - like it was my misunderstanding, rather your apparent inability to make yourself clear the first time. Then you go and tell me I'm reading into things, twice.

So it was a simple question, and I provided a simple answer. In my opinion, there was no snarkiness or hostility - perhaps you were "reading into it."

I've had a bad day, and maybe you're getting an unfair shake by me, but your original reply pissed me off, plain and simple.

Are we clear? Clear as mud.

It's obvious you are having a bad day. I can tell that, I knew that with your first post to me. I'm sorry to hear that.

It was a simple question about a name, that's it.

I have no idea why my reply to you would piss you off. Your reply to me first, was unnecessary and antagonistic, I asked Shannon a question, about a name and if that meant a new spin off program like DMRI and DMSRI. I could tell then you were in a bad mood, but I didn't "call you out" at all. I simply gave more information about my completely normal question about a name, and was a bit surprised why you attacked me for nothing, twice. But instantly figuring out you either have resistance or a bad day going, which are the two most likely culprits here for reactions WAY out of proportion at times for all of us.

I asked why he used AOSI instead of DMSI...that's it. That's why I got snark thrown at me twice. Looking at that, I know you are having a bad day or resistance as you never do that, as the reaction to a simple naming question to Shannon set you off this way for some reason.

I meant nothing by it...I asked why he used AOSI instead of DMSI.

So yeah, I am getting a completely unfair shake. But you saying you're having a bad day makes me understand why. I understand. Sorry you're having a bad day. It's all good, bro.