"but accept that others are sceptical towards your stereotype postings"
Do you have a mouse in your pocket or have "others" given you authority to speak for them?
If you mean you are skeptical or some such, you are making the statement not "others", and feel free to state it.
If you claim authority to speak for others I say.....show the proof or else speak for yourself.
This would be a accurate representation if one wanted to make that statement correctly...
but accept that others may be skeptical towards your stereotype postings.
Thusly stated it may be a correctly worded statement. Are presumes what is not known to be. May allows for the possibility of its existance in a more than singular context but does not strictly state that multiple references suchly are known to exist.
To have uncorrectly worded statements is normally no big deal. When one is accusing another of sterotype postings or things of that nature, what is stated, must be corrrectly stated. By my take I personally doubt other view all M's posts are sterotypical postings. They may or may not be. Your statement initially infers others certainly do, which is not proven, and thusly implies a consensus view when none may be present. It may(or may not) be a singular view only. When one is implying a consensus view of negative origin applies, in a public forum where many have participated, this can wrongfully disincourage such targeted peoples from participating on that basis. If such is established(such concensus opinion)....I say go for it, sure, state it. That has absolutely not been established in this issue. If you state it has I say...prove it. If not edit your comment.
Sorry for using the English language not as skillful as you want it to be used. Of course in this context when saying "others" I am speaking from my own individual perspective. I am not claiming that others are actually sharing my scepticism as to his postings. How could they? His postings are very nice to read and the instructions contained appear very attractive, easy and without effort. Don't we like everything that announces "achievement without effort"? Of course we do!
Actually I believe that scepticisms towards such kind of postings is usually not liked by many and that such kind of instructions are generally more attractive and - if one firmly believes in them - one may be calmed, self-satisfied, peacefully abiding for oneself, perhaps experience some sort of bliss every now and then, Bliss we may also experience when reading nice poems or seeing nice films that seem to place us outside of this disturbing world. There is nothing bad about bliss, don't get me wrong.
It is perfectly natural that we are drawn towards higher blissful states. Humans are always attracted to higher status.
Do not take my scepticism as offense. Each of us may voice agreement, scepticism ... belief or doubt ...
If one chooses to exclusively publish a special sort of texts only then divergent views and/or scepticism may be voiced publicly. Whether the sort of texts that I am referring to have been meant by their authors to be published in this way is another issue.
This is the vajrayana section. I thought that vajrayana is considered "secret". Seems to be an inherent contradiction to have a vajrayana section in a public forum. But I don't know. I consider everything published openly to be subject to dialectical perspectives also. Because if it were Vajrayana then it would be explicitely non-dialectical, but then it would not be published openly.
I take the responsibility for my misunderstandings and applying language not skillfully. My intention is not to be offensive. I am just applying freedom of speech. My perspectives may be outrightly rejected by others. No problem with that.