my 2 cents: 1) one per day 2) always remind yourself, whatever you do, it's only worthwile, if you do it with love with the intention of possible benefit to someone. Whenever you benefit someone, you benefit yourSelf.
3)also, it's not necessary to respond to everything in words; take it into the silence and let it resolve there 4)if you need to just unstress or whatever, go for walk or jog, or learn to ground yourself( there are various techniques to do this ); or eat a nice tasty heavy meal( but only occasionally ) 5) do self inquiry 6) is this an addiction? what are your priorities? what do you intend to get out of this? 7) do japa om, amar --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is from a friend who goes to our Wednesday Night satsangs here in FF: > > Yes. The rules I am suggesting is kind of like what we have on Weds. No > arguing, no lectuirng no debating. Keep it civil. With a low number of posts > allowed in 24 hours it could be monitored. ALso would make them think and > only send thoughtful and meaningful comments. Stop the trite BS that is > passed off as discussion. If you can't be civil we don't want you. It would > allow meaningful discussion without the usual bashing considered to be fair > game. Fairfield itself is different because it is eclectic. I believe FFLife > can be eclectic and civil and meaningful. Much of the stuff posted is > thoughtless drivel. Make them think and use your three posts a day for > something worthwhile. Think about how are meeting would be if we allowed > anarchy which is what we have on FFLife now. A few inconsiderate have made > it meaningless for the rest. Just have a program that only allows three a > day and then the rest go in the garbage. It would mean a delay but worth it > to push some of the loonies off to some other bashing pit. > > --------------- > > I'm beginning to think this is a good idea. Whether 3 posts or 5 or 10 - but > some limited number. This could be implemented without having to put people > on moderated status. If someone would volunteer to be the "counter" then > they could post a note saying So-and-So has reached their quota. After that, > if the person posts, Alex or I could switch them to moderated status. So if > we were to do this, what should the quota be? Want to vote on it? > > A more important point would be to restrict posters who can't refrain from > bad-mouthing each other. This is a harder one to police because it's a > subjective judgment. I have to work and can't sit here all day deliberating > on the tone of people's posts. Any suggestions? > > If we implemented these guidelines and improved the tone of the group, I > would invite back people like LB Shriver, Cliff Rees, Mark Merideth, and > others who have dropped out, disgusted by the way the group has degenerated. >
