--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to thank Bill for encouraging me to stay.
> Thanks to people like him, I will. For a while, anyway.
> 

Turq, I did notice that too about Bill and did wonder where he came from.

Hey Bill Hicks, you a regularly practicing meditator?  Just wondering.  

Like, not just a someone who might have learned  a meditation but quit or 
dropped practicing.  That kind of  `fallen away' status of course would be just 
a `non-meditator'.  Are you a practicing meditator, of some kind?

Just wondering.  It helps a lot in figuring who to read when they post things 
here to FFL.

Jai Guru Dev,

-Doug in FF   



> --- In [email protected], "It's just a ride"
> <bill.hicks.all.a.ride@> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, TurquoiseB [email protected]
> wrote:
> > >
> > > From my side, to be honest, I've been trying
> > > to provoke a little interest lately, in lieu
> > > of bailing from FFL altogether.
> > > . . .
> > > So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> > > a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> > > any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> > > jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> > > not, I'll bail.
> >
> > Don't you realize that people have left because they have
> > had enough of our resident Lord of the Flies?  The one who
> > lords over all, thinks "pushing buttons" is a noble thing
> > instead of an ill mannered, nasty thing to do and is in
> > violation of the guidelines and rules of FFL?
> 
> Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual
> environments filled with people who wish to
> identify those "buttons" in themselves, identify
> the attachments they reveal, and work on elim-
> inating them. In such environments, the person
> who can help you to pinpoint your own hot
> button issues (and thus your samskaras and
> attachments) is your friend.
> 
> Interestingly, in environments filled with folks
> I tend to call "spiritual slackers," such people
> are not only not considered friends, they are
> considered enemies. The reason is that the
> spiritual slackers are NOT working on trying
> to eliminate their attachments and their sam-
> skaras and their hot button issues. They *cling*
> to their hot button, as if they believed that the
> buttons -- and the overreactions they indulge
> in when they are pushed -- are "them."
> 
> One might suggest, Bill, that your post -- coming
> as it does from someone I don't think I have ever
> interacted with at all -- is an example of the latter.
> 
> > Try reading the guidelines and rules.  Its as though they
> > were written just for you.  Why Rick hasn't thrown you
> > out in light of his guidelines and rules is beyond me and
> > I'm sure many other FFL people.  Thankfully for you
> > Rick is the owner/moderator in name only.
> 
> The fact that Rick has not "thrown me out" the
> way you'd like him to might have something to
> do with him having been "thrown out" of the
> domes himself in Fairfield. It might have some-
> thing to do with the credo he posted for this
> online cyberestablishment on its home page:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/>
> 
> Bill, spend a little time reading that credo. Then
> ask yourself whether a forum that was *founded*
> to provide a rare place where people who have
> been involved with the TM movement can talk
> about that movement *without* fear of retalia-
> tion from the TM movement is likely to throw
> someone off that forum for being merely an
> asshole and pushing a few spiritual slackers'
> hot buttons *as* they talk about it.
> 
> I mean, Rick didn't throw off one guy even after
> he mounted a cyberattack on FFL by posting
> porn to it and then writing to the Yahoo admin-
> istrators complaining about the porn *he* had
> posted, in an attempt to get the forum taken down.
> 
> I *understand* that you are happier with the "TMO
> approach" to things you don't like --  BAN THEM.
> Like the TMO, you'd like to declare the things or
> the people you don't like anathema, declare them
> heretics or "off the program," and send them away.
> 
> Cool, I guess, if that's what floats your boat. I don't
> think you're going to have much luck convincing
> Rick to ride in it, though.
> 
> > People would stop lurking and become contributors to FFL
> > if you left.  But they will lurk until assured they won't be
> > playing into your game of superiority and bullying, trying to
> > compensate for the obvious, that you have no other place to
> > go.  Many go away for a few months, come back to check if
> > you're still here then go away again, hoping to wait you out.
> 
> Bill, as I say I don't think I've ever interacted with
> you before. Other than a couple of posts of yours
> recently, I don't think I've ever even *seen* you
> post here. The only post of yours that the broken
> Yahoo search engine can find is from February:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/208504
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/208504>
> 
> In it -- interestingly -- you do nothing but repost
> a news article about a Texas judge who ordered
> a website to report anonymous flamers and trolls.
> Is trying to get people you don't like BANNED
> from Internet groups your *hobby*?  :-)
> 
> > I would appeal to your sense of shame in urging your to
> > leave FFL, but shame is something your type of person lacks.
> 
> Bill, as I have said, I have *not* flamed you in
> the past. To be perfectly honest, I don't think
> I even noticed your existence until you went
> out of your way to flame *me* just now.
> 
> But if it eases your mind and allows you to post
> without the fear of being "lorded over" by me,
> I will agree to go back to not noticing your
> existence in the future. I can assure you it
> will not be all that difficult.
>


Reply via email to