coming to an understanding i've done most of the lion's share of edits on this article but i want to make it clear that my interest is in having a neutral article and that i'm not trying to push the idea that the seth material is true or valid that's a judgement that the article can't make for example the first use of the word channeled had quotes around it i was the one who put those quotes in though someone else removed them i inserted the first instance of the word purportedly even though it is on the list of words to avoid because i felt it was needed and i have reinstated it when other editors removed it someone named itsmejudith has just changed the word awareness to the idea and i support that change i'm mentioning these small things simply as examples to show people that the neutrality of the article is important to me and despite what you may have thought speaking to verbal now when i substituted jane roberts speaking as seth said for the seth personality said i believed that i was making a change that was a leap forward in neutrality since roberts was the one who actually uttered the words verbal i would like to try to bury the hatchet and work together on this article your interest in the article appears to me to be negative but i am willing to consider the possibility that i am wrong and to see your point of view in order to work together we'll have to discuss specifics of the article on this page we'll need to discuss individual passages as well as the broader issues of the article's size and the proportion of primary to secondary cites if we make a concerted effort to work together i'm sure we can come to an understanding and improve the article are you with me on this