--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming "Buck." Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the "I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules" period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went "Buck" that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : FWIW, "Buck" hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip <name> That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
