Hmmm. Maybe I've figured out how you could do what you've claimed.
The last two paragraphs present your point. That which precedes it is justification. Excessive discursion. When it covers over the cognizance of sheer awareness (cit) then the waking and dream states partially overlap. Clever. Or perhaps habitual. . --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > > > > > Jim recently spaced out on the day/time and had to take a week off. The only > difference here is that Judy quickly saw her mistake and attempted to right the > wrong by deleting her posts. > > > > It's not "righting" anything, it's just covering > > it up. So much for her honesty. And really, > > so much for the post count. I say if she > > posts we abolish it altogether. > > How can it be considered covering up, when there's nothing the least bit > secretive about deleting posts? Admins have a bit more specific info about > deletions, but anybody can see that deletions occurred, and anybody can look at > the alternate archive and figure out what was deleted. It makes no sense to > accuse Judy of trying to hide her overposting when there's simply no possible > way to hide the overposting or the deletions. There's also the fact that she > emailed me to tell me what had happened. I see no dishonesty or deception in any > of her actions. > > Dear Alex, > > If I can interpose a comment here: from the whole tone and context of how you have responded to this charge of one FFL member overposting, one has the feeling that you are entirely free of any need to be defensive or unfair in your explanation of how and why you have acted as you have in this matter. > > I think this a perfect instance where one, ultimately, can get an intuitive feel for where the truth lies. If someone is committed to getting justice at all costs, but is being driven by something other than or in addition to the mere facts of the case, then one can assume that this person is determined to *use* this particular circumstance in order to settle a score, in order to retaliate, in order to seek revenge for past slights or wrongs. And in this reading of the issue it means that the subjective is driving the objective. > > Which is never a good thing if one is interested in *discovering* what the truth of the matter is. > > Without getting into all the arguments on both sides here, I merely wish to point out that you, in your attempts to defuse the moral significance of this particular instance of overposting, exhibit just that measure of equanimity and disinterestedness which enables your true, non-reactive nature to show itself. > > And thus to allow others to have the space to examine the issue for themselves without bias, without any sense of ex parte prejudice. > > I am not saying therefore that you are 100% right and your critics 100% wrong; I am saying something else. I am saying that by your writing the way you have about this issue you are demonstrating beyond all doubt your own sincere and honest motives, and therefore, by doing so, indicating (at least to me) that the friendly and wholesome forces within the universe are getting behind you. Therefore, it is much more likely your version of this issue is closer to how it would be viewed from a perfectly objective standpoint than the version of those who are clamouring for the strict application of the letter of the law. > > I have said it before: when one's third person perspective is getting (almost exclusively) controlled by the variability and unreliability of one's first person perspectiveto the detriment of remaining impartial about a particular issueone can be sure that issue is not being examined fairlyor rather the opportunity to know where the preponderance of truth lies is obscured. > > Whereas in my reading of all your posts on this matter, you have shown (at least to me) you are approaching it so as to determine where actual truth and justice lies. Justice, then, need to be felt and experienced beyond and apart from one's particular and personal desires. > > I therefore conclude that this poster did not willfully violate the spirit of the rule, and therefore should not be penalizedthe only reason to penalize her is to satisfy what appear to be the appetite of her enemies for revenge against her. (I have no idea whether their antagonism is valid or not; I have not read enough along these lines at FFL to know anything about this.) > > I just like the person who comes through in your posts, Alex. > > MZ >
