...life can be translucent

Menu

The Passengers of MH370

S

svenrus

Guest
I ain't. So be it. My inbox is blank to me: last few postings from... Who knows ? a couple maybe three ? I'm not into doing trouble or provokation here, just tried defence Val's right to open a thread despice his/her's socalled, by Trojan, "......As far as I am concerned Val's answer of 48.2 may have been addressing her own motives or feelings in asking, or even a comment upon her action of asking......." (#87 this thread) personal attempt in the reading. Please remember that each and every reading is personal, somehow whether being on the self or being on the aroundings on oneself, so to speak.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
Oh for pity's sake I am allowed to give a view here and if you read my remark the way it was meant to be read I was giving my honest opinion on these kinds of readings of public affairs ! Can't you understand that ? It is not a personal criticism of Val but my view of how Yi may address these things.

It is perfectly legitimate for me to say here that the cast may reflect the querant's own mind frame on asking !

I am entitled to my view and it's not my fault you don't understand me.

Besides which this was my last post

trojan


Perhaps somebody already said this but FWIW my first thought on 48.2 would be a fuel issue that was avoidable. In 48.2 someone is wasteful, not using resources to best advantage, there is a leak, a fuel leak ?

We may never know but as I understand it it is now thought this was not likley a hijack or anything like that but engine failure.

So that is another take on the reading...that there was a fault with the fuel system.

I see you made a sarcastic remark about the box being found and wanted a link (which you have now deleted along with other sarcastic remarks) Well I heard on UK news that hi jack seems less likely now....but anyway that is just my view on 48.2 anyway I don't have to justify with links for you.

Anyway I am not interested in this thread anymore so please leave me alone.

Just as if I ever said Val had no right to start the thread ! What nonsense you write !
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
I ain't. So be it. My inbox is blank to me: last few postings from... Who knows ? a couple maybe three ? I'm not into doing trouble or provokation here, just tried defence Val's right to open a thread despice his/her's socalled, by Trojan, "......As far as I am concerned Val's answer of 48.2 may have been addressing her own motives or feelings in asking, or even a comment upon her action of asking......." (#87 this thread) personal attempt in the reading. Please remember that each and every reading is personal, somehow whether being on the self or being on the aroundings on oneself, so to speak.

Your inbox is full.....I was trying to message you to say if you don't know what I mean then don't comment . You think your inbox is blank and it isn't. You think I mean things I don't.. are you drunk ?

Your last few posts, now deleted, have been complete gobbledegook as if written by a drunk. What are you talking about ! This is a discussion forum and I gave my view of how answers on public affairs may reflect private affairs. Go patronise someone else ! I have not been rude and I have offered varying points of view so I see no need for you to be so rude when you don't even understand what I have said !
 

pocossin

visitor
Joined
Feb 7, 1970
Messages
4,521
Reaction score
181
My inbox is blank to me

To empty the Inbox, click on Membership and select Inbox. Scroll down to the bottom of the page, and you will see Folder Controls and probably a warning message that your Inbox is full. Click on Empty Folder and all the messages in your Inbox will be deleted. Then you will have room to receive new messages.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
I ain't. So be it. My inbox is blank to me: last few postings from... Who knows ? a couple maybe three ? I'm not into doing trouble or provokation here, just tried defence Val's right to open a thread despice his/her's socalled, by Trojan, "......As far as I am concerned Val's answer of 48.2 may have been addressing her own motives or feelings in asking, or even a comment upon her action of asking......." (#87 this thread) personal attempt in the reading. Please remember that each and every reading is personal, somehow whether being on the self or being on the aroundings on oneself, so to speak.

Why pick on me anyway ! There have been a number of rather off topic remarks on this thread by various posters yet you single me out to pick on. Well back off and don't bother communicating with me or talking about me again.


your message box is still full BTW. Not to worry I was just messaging you to back off and leave me alone !
 
M

mirian

Guest
I have been trying really hard not to get involved in all of this but enough is enough. This thread has become a jumble, now just clogging the system basically. There have been a few genuine posts of people giving their views/interpretations but that's all. The rest is useless. Some tried to use the thread as a platform for their religious beliefs, others simply don't read the posts thoroughly but add their comments anyway. Trojan wrote a genuine/valuable input on what hex 48.2 might mean and it was twisted into something else that she didn't say.
Aren't people here able to a minimum of reflection? What about those who have been posting just for a laugh? What has all of that got to do with Shared Readings?
That is my personal view, which I am prepared to stand for. If you are not interested in I Ching, if you don't want to learn, stop being a time waster and go somewhere else. Thank you very much.
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
Nothing wrong Mirian with trying to clarify. If they are typos, merely careless, and yet the person is seriously seeking to express something, then they need to realise people cannot make sense of what they are writing.

Sometimes however it's better to lighten up about it. Some of us have got enough troubles without getting knickers in a twist about this thread.
 
S

svenrus

Guest
Your inbox is full.....I was trying to message you to say if you don't know what I mean then don't comment . You think your inbox is blank and it isn't. You think I mean things I don't.. are you drunk ?

Your last few posts, now deleted, have been complete gobbledegook as if written by a drunk. What are you talking about ! This is a discussion forum and I gave my view of how answers on public affairs may reflect private affairs. Go patronise someone else ! I have not been rude and I have offered varying points of view so I see no need for you to be so rude when you don't even understand what I have said !

Yuo'r right about that I wasn't sober last night. My attention being somewhere else than here.
 
S

svenrus

Guest
'aroundings'? what are they?

Aroundings maybe wrong word/spelling. There is the consultation about me/the person and there are the consultations about others/around oneself; to example passengers on a airplane.
But please forget all of my nonsense from the last post.
 

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
19,151
Reaction score
3,418
<dons moderator hat>

In theory, if I went by the letter of the law, I should go through this thread with a fine tooth comb from the start, select all the posts that are not directly about interpreting readings, and move them out en masse to a thread in Moderation.

In practice, I don't think that would be a remotely useful contribution, since a) it would probably make holes in the conversation and b) it invites people to continue the argument over there, when it feels as though this one is finished and everyone would prefer to get back to readings.

So my grand executive moderatorly decision is to leave everything well alone. But yes, should anyone not feel able to get back to readings, please start a thread in Moderation to make your point and just post a link to it here.

<returns hat to cupboard with mothballs>
 
S

svenrus

Guest
News may 14' 2018: Article "Vance, and the other experts on the panel, all agree on the suspicion that MH370 captain – Zaharie Ahmad Shah – was attempting suicide.
They believe he selected a remote and isolated part of the route so the plane would disappear.
"

... if so it fit's with hijacking, as Val proposed - and what Val feared may have become the outcome. Four years without any signs of survivors just isn't realistic. (Or ?)
 
Last edited:

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
655
Reaction score
324
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4

The initial question was asked on March 15 2014: "...... I asked the Yi if any of the passengers would survive, and the answer was 48.2." cal val asked.
Today it's still a mystery, ten years later almost. As far as I'm aware no survivors have been giving life signs.
In the hope that the mystery will be solved, until now the answer to cal val's question is: No (at least until now)
Taking this to be a fact: where in hexagram 48 line two is this information to be found?


1703097655290.jpeg
Translation in Pinyin and English, Gregory C. Richter [LINK], Chinese, from the Received text: Birocco's site [LINK]

(I have chosen this translation as it, I suppose, is as close to, word by word, the oracle given.)

The Urn, or Jar as Wu Jing-Nuan [
LINK] translate it, is broken and leaking, not only the water but also what is living in it (Wu Jing-Nuan's comment to 48.2).

I mean, after nearly ten years... has the answer maybe been given here?

I don't know as this text is out of my reach for understanding but intuitively I can sense it this way...
 
Last edited:

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top