Right on !! I, Dr. RC endorse this sentiment as well.
What I'm hearing from the likes of you Steve, Emily, Ann, Judy, Edg and others is that "end justifies the means" in case of Barry and I just can't disagree with this sentiment. That getting rid of Barry - as Emily so beautifully stated - Barry's "vicious brand of mean and degrading hostility" - is a huge bonus for FFL. And this issue is different from the concerns regarding the new moderator Doug on FFL and his unstated reasons for banning Barry. I believe there are concerns about freedom of expression especially anti-Tm opinions but Doug has done nothing so far that leads one to that conclusion. The people who have expressed strong sentiments against Doug haven't banned. Curtis is on a overdrive here (at the behest of Barry?) to weave these stories together and obfuscate the truth, blur the lines between two themes/stories in the way he does best - context switching/stealing (is that how my old man would have called?), in his charming, deceptive, manipulative behavior. Many of us here are well aware of Curtis's tactics and not surprised here. He equates banning Barry to curtailing of freedom of expression and he's just plain wrong. The arguments of others that Barry be just ignored, that everyone is responsible for their content doesn't make any sense for the victims of Barry's malicious lies. Not all of us can be indifferent, many of the posters like Ann, Edg, Emily, Steve are passionate, heart centered individuals and indifference can't be prescribed as a solution to deal with Barry's toxic, noxious rants. Dr. RC. ---In [email protected], <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Ya hear that, Doug. Run the fu*k with this. This is how a lot of us feel. ---In [email protected], <emily.mae50@...> wrote : The way I look at it, Buck simply had the guts and finally the authority to give Barry what he couldn't give himself—a little self-discipline. It's a breath of fresh air and I am 100% in favor of this change—at least for the present time. Perhaps FFL will flower after the manure has had time to mix in. ---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote : Ohhhh yeah, I had forgotten Bucky wanted to shut FFL down - but he got better than that, now he is the main-most person in charge! From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 10:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reaffirming The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines Et tu Edg? So if he culls one from the herd unfairly, but you don't like the guy anyway it is OK? Say it is not true my brother, say it is not true. It is only when he comes for you that you will get a sense of conscience? Right now, bouncing me would be more trouble than it would be worth, but by the criteria already used, I am just as vulnerable and so are you. If the criteria is held in secret and is "whatever the F he feels like" then it is just a matter of time until only the Age of Enlightenment News gets broadcast here. And before I am accused of the slippery slope fallacy, I lived this exact brand of control in the same movement Buck was trained in. He is already referring to opposing his banning with zero accountability as "nitpicking." Do you care that he lied about Rick being behind this ban with him? Have you ever been in a room where some sanctimonious prick came bustling in and said "Maharishi wants _________. And then you find out later that it was just his idea and he wanted to silence dissent ahead of time by invoking Maharishi's name? Before he found this angle Buck was advocating shutting down FFL. He has no love for free discussion here. I challenge anyone to repost any time he has engaged in a back and forth discussion with a participant here, the kind you and I value. Just one. And I double dare anyone to post one where he shows up as a genuine person talking to another adult instead of this constant condescension, first veiled by persona and now in the open. Edg, do ya hear me! ---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote : Heh, gotta ask, "what's the actual risk of Doug?" Will he bounce others? I don't think so. Look at this scurvy's crew's roiling bitching at each other that's going on RIGHT NOW, and he's done nothing about that. Maybe it was a vendetta against the trolls with "any reason" being enough. So? Yeah, abusive. So? I just don't see this kind of fascism happening again unless someone truly rises to the troll heights -- which was a very high bar being set. Doug chided me about swearing, but nothing since even though I still swear -- this shows his, um, forbearance? Bah, I'm just happy I can post here again without really having to steel myself for the barbs. Short sighted of me, but there it is. If there is a Sword of Damocles, it's a heavy chain holding it up. ---In [email protected], <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Me: You just saved me some typing time. Excellent, thank you. ---In [email protected], <anartaxius@...> wrote : But the spirit of FFL was far more interesting than this drivel, and in 10 years Yahoo never made any attempt to change or alter what happened on FFL, Yahoo really does not care what happens in their groups unless it somehow affects them financially. You are also incorrect in using the term re-moderation. This group was moderated, with a light and just hand that allowed far more than now, true freedom of speech. Your lack of transparency in the issues you have handled so far reveals the dark, covert spirit that dwells within. This clandestine spirit is the enemy of truth seeking, and I for one, vote for your removal from this position. I see you have resumed spamming FFL, and this is also a violation of the so-called guidelines. ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Dear Friends of FFL; I feel we are moving very much within the spirit and intent of letter of the Yahoo-groups guidelines in the re-moderation we have done thus far.... <spam removed>.
