Wow... this whole subjective/objective reality thing is enough to give me a headache..!
Firstly, no offence taken, no worries there at all.
But more to the point, the difference between Steve & Erin's posts goes to the heart of what LoA is all about
: According to Erin, there's diddly I can do about any situation that involves another person's freewill because reality is objective. According to Steve, I
can make a difference in a situation like this based on LoA because their reality is in line with my own reality.
Whether one reality is any more, well, real than the other isn't at issue. What's at issue, at least for me, is whether LoA will make any difference.
An objective LoA interpretation would say, for instance, that regardless of my feelings or expectations about a matter - especially one involving the participation of another party - the other party's freewill negates any LoA.
A subjective LoA interpretation postulates that because everyone and all around me are simply a reflection of my own interpretations, I can fundamentally influence matters that may, at first glance, seem entirely out of my control.
So I really don't seem them as being two sides of the same proverbial coin. Granted, all of this LoA stuff is pretty new to me, so undoubtedly there are aspects of it that I don't fully understand.