2 Amber Strikes - "MikeWithGod" / Mike / Mike A.

A place to view the strikes record, strikes issued and reasons why (if gifted)
Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:07 pm
Location: London, England

2 Amber Strikes - "MikeWithGod" / Mike / Mike A.

Post by Nicky » Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:05 pm


I have issued Mike with 2 AMBER STRIKES for his actions towards Rita in the below thread:


Mike has breached the below sections of the terms of use:

1) Any co-dependent, emotional bartering based exchange with other visitors with the purpose of getting your own addictions met
2) Entering discussions and forcibly pressing your beliefs on others of what you believe love and truth would dictate

Mike wrote in his introductory thread that he feels he could be one of the 14 reincarnated souls that have returned to Earth, namely John Mark. Mike also openly invited anyone to ask questions or comment in return, which appears that he was seeking genuine assistance from others. I will explain why this was not the case below.

In response to his post, Rita directly shared some information with Mike concerning what she had heard Jesus say in the past, as well as her own experiences.

I initially felt that Rita was being dismissive towards Mike, however, after receiving some feedback from Mary due to us (forum staff) feeling that we had not dealt with this situation with Truth & Love initially, she felt that Rita was merely sharing information, which I began to realise a few days ago.

Mike overreacted to Rita's post quite dramatically. He accused Rita of many things that were not true.

This shows that Mike was posting in facade and addiction initially for reacting in such a manner to someone who was just sharing information with him (which he asked for). I cannot specifically feel the reason why Mike acted like he did towards Rita, but one thing is clear by the nature of his response, and that is that he did not get whatever addiction he was wanting to get met through her.

This can also be highlighted when observing Mike's response to Julie, which was vastly different to how he responded towards Rita, indicating that he got an addiction met through his engagement with her.

When studying Mike's response to Rita, he dissected her post in an aggressive way by forcibly pressing his own beliefs of how he felt love and truth would dictate he be treated (demand).

Mike assumed an admin/moderator role in his response, by providing Rita with "feedback" which is in direct breach of the forum terms of use. He did not raise his concerns directly with the forum staff, but chose to take it upon himself to "tell Rita off" for something she did not do. Mike also did this with an anonymous forum member who joined up. Instead of flagging this individual to the forum staff, he chose to engage with them which exacerbated the particular situation.

I would like to share that the majority of my response to Mike was me pandering to him (a big addiction of mine that I have with potentially angry and aggressive men which goes back to my own childhood with my Dad). I was acting in fear by locking the thread and choosing to discuss it with Eloisa & Lena rather than challenging my addiction/fear and dealing with the situation swiftly by raising the real issues of love. I did this because I was in fear that if I chose to raise Mike's unloving behaviour with him directly and issue him with the appropriate strikes, he would react to me in the same manner that he reacted towards Rita (and so I wanted to avoid the potentiality). As you can see, this was not a humble decision I made and one which was not in harmony with Love OR Truth and resulted in an unloving outcome for Rita (leading her to believe she was partly responsible), Mike (feeding his addiction) and everyone else on the forum (not standing up for truth).

I would like to make it clear that Mike was the unloving person in the interaction, NOT Rita for the reasons I have shared above.

Earlier on in Mike's intro thread a couple of months ago, I shared with him what I felt his addiction with Rita was (him pandering to her). After observing this latest interaction between the two of them, it is clear that this piece of feedback I gave to Mike was inaccurate, as he definitely does not have this injury towards women, at least not initially as there seems to be another layer of emotions he has towards women and others that will need to be addressed. I mistakenly attributed one of my own injuries to him - and thanks to Mary's feedback, she helped me see this.

I hope this makes sense to everyone.

Again, I would like to thank Mary for her gift in providing myself, Lena & Eloisa with this feedback. It is greatly appreciated and one that has helped remedy the situation and the issues of love contained therein. This has brought up a lot of my own injuries with facade/addiction/fear which I will be tackling in the meantime.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest