---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote :
I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In [email protected], <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 [email protected], <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. [email protected], <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 [email protected], <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.
