What I was picking up from your earlier post was, as I said, what appeared to be a desire to empathize so much that it resulted in a broad statement about agreement, when in fact you really didn't agree.  That was my concern.  But I understand your post, and what you meant to say.

I have never seen confrontation work on the Forum at least, and by that I mean I haven't seen it  "work" for the person being confronted.  I think it can "work" for somebody else (who isn't being confronted, just observing) who can look at what is being said and not take it so personally, or feel so attacked.

For many premies, being confronted about the "non-belief belief system" or seeing Mr. Rawat criticized (basically just holding him to normal human ethical and integrity standards is seen as a vicious attack) is just seen as proof that he is the perfect master, who always elicits criticism and will always have detractors, and it's also proof of how confused the mind is, and what a danger entertaining doubts is.   Confrontation can then just be seen as evidence of the need to put on the blinders.