---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : quite an exaggeration, I'd say.
we know negativity, and we know what an edge is. everyone likes edge, no one lines trolling. it sounds Curtis, like you have a fervent wish for Doug to turn into the tyrant, he shows no sign of turning into. Me: It has already happened and because you also hated Barry you are twisting your ethics around to make it sound OK. S: he banned Barry, because he obviously felt the site would be better off without an individual declaring, loudly, continually, that he was going to undermine him, the moderator, at every turn. Me: This term "undermine the moderator" interests me. What specific actions could a non moderator take that would undermine a person with the power to banish? Could he state his different opinion perhaps? What Barry was doing was to voice his objections to Rick giving this kind of power to a person he predicted would abuse it and low and behold....that is exactly what he did as soon as he could. Your story does not fit the facts or even what Buck himself has stated. He never gave this reason, you are repeating Judy's attempt to make this all sound reasonable. It is a made-up reason after the fact. I laid out the history of how it went down and you are ignoring the facts. S: since then, there has been no, as in zero, evidence of Doug exerting editorial control over the site. Me: Yeah I get it, it was just Holland. He would never go for Poland... S: in fact, what we have, and what we haven't had in a long time is, ironically, the free expression of ideas, without someone with an overriding agenda putting the bum's rush on any idea he didn't like. Me: Whenever I lurked in the last few months I would see you responding to Barry. You spent time doing this. It was your choice. What you wrote about someone putting a the bum's rush on ideas is a weird statement that hands the power of your own mind and intellectual boundaries over to someone else here. I have taken as much fire from as many people as anyone here Steve. I was able to choose whose criticism I would respond to. I am curious why you feel unable to make this choice yourself and why you would let anyone's other opinion on a topic give your ideas the bum's rush? When you and I disagree, we have a civil discussion like this one. If Barry didn't treat you that way then why did you respond to him so much? I think I know. Same reason I interact with people I don't agree with, because it is a great writing prompt for uncovering our own ideas in writing to people we disagree with. I didn't do this with the last R because he was not capable of discussion. But with the other two I did for the same reasons you did with Barry I'll bet. All three R's rode my jock for legions of posts. None of them deserved to get booted because they went after everything I wrote with their idiotic personal attacks. None of them gave any of my ideas the bums' rush. They mostly just proved my point with their behavior. Buck has violated the trust of this place by being dishonest and if you were being honest you would just admit that your personal position on Barry has distorted your sense of right and wrong on this issue. Moderators need to give reasons for booting people, not lie about it and blame it on other people. And if as a group we don't buy the reason, Rick should be informed that his moderator is not running the site as the free though forum it was intended to be. Barry didn't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : snip And the people who didn't like the person look the other way and say,"let's move along and not be negative." And the people who have seen this all before and know where it leads stand up and speak out. Then one of two things happen. Maharishi visits the course and kicks out the power-grabbing guru wanna-be for abusing his power, or the other voices get quelled one by one. Time will tell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : And I notice that Dougy is still not responding to Curtis' request for an explanation to Turq's getting the boot - ignoring what needs to be addressed and blabbering about a bunch of other stuff is spot on TMO behavior. From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : This is not a place for someone who has a stated agenda to prove his point that an organization is a cult, and to label anyone who may defend the organization as cult apologist. According to the spiel on the Fairfield Life home page, this is the perfect place to discuss whether the TM Org is a cult. If what you say is true, then you feel this place has a stated agenda to prove the point that the TM Org is not a cult. This is a blatant statement showing you wish to suppress opposing points of view, as do many others here. Remember the first quotation on that page: "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell
