The time for debating the 35 post limit is long past. The mob ruled on this one. But I do detect an interesting trend in your thinking...
You have expressed many times that you are practicing the correct form of TM while people who lived fulltime in the movement and had a different relationship with MMY than you did were off the program and not doing TM properly. This extends even to people who had direct instructions from MMY himself about their relationship. The idea that you are so unique in your understanding of the teaching that you are more correct in your view than people who had personal relationships with MMY has always struck me as extremely odd. I know from reading many posters try to discuss this with you that communication on this point if futile, but I want to point out that it involves your assuming a "special" status among all the people who have been involved with TM. A statement such as Rick Archer not doing TM properly when he was involved is absurd to me, but not to you. Then we have your special posting needs here. Invoking your special needs, you assert that the rules don't apply to you because you choose to express yourself in more posts than the other members have agreed on. I detect a trend here. I enjoy reading some of your posts and I suspect your contribution has been good enough to allow Rick and the other moderators to give you a pass on your not following the posting rules. But let me use one of my 35 to propose another POV for you to consider. Perhaps you are not so different from the other members here. Perhaps we all had equally valid personal relationships with TM and MMY, although they are often very different. One person may enjoy TM twice a day with not further relationship with MMY or his teaching and some became skin boys. Between those extremes we find the rest of us with varying degrees of involvement. Personally, I have never related to people who felt that MMY had the keys to enlightenment but never went full steam into his most intense programs. It seems illogical to me. But that doesn't make it wrong for those people who found a different balance with the teaching, it just highlights people's different needs and personalities. When you attempt to convey that people who made different choices than you did with relating to MMY as being wrong, and set yourself up as choosing the correct way, it seems to me that it reveals a lack of understanding of human nature. When you convey this POV in a manor that asserts your special rights over the expressed desire of the group, it makes me wonder... Are you really all that special and different from the rest of us? I don't think so, I think it is a limitation of your POV. I don't believe that you alone have the special perceptiveness to sus out the "correct" form of MMY's teaching to follow, and I don't believe that you have special posting needs that are different from the rest of us. --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > "I made too many postings (some would say that this is just > expressing > > one's free speech) on FFL." > > > > The concept of "free speech" does interest me. It does not extend > to > > private groups. The Boy Scouts of America has been protected under > > the First Amendment rights of private association in their > > discrimination against atheists and gay members. This forum's rules > > do not attempt to restrict your "free speech" by attempting to make > > rules that make the forum more enjoyable for everyone. Trying to > turn > > your own lack of caring for what the rest of the group wants does > not > > deserve to wear the banner of your "free speech". Free speech is > > important, inconsiderateness (in this form) is petty. > > > > You're absolutely right that free speech doesn't extend to private > forums, such as this one. > > So let me use the term "speech" instead of "free speech" which to you > (and others I assume) invokes the first amendment of the constitution. > > My speech and the way I express myself is often practised by short, > curt postings. And I do many of them. > > That's just the way I express myself. > > Others, such as Barry Wright, tend towards long, many worded > postings. Few and far between, but long-worded. Barry's weekly > postings are well under the 35 per week limit. > > His style and my style are on opposite ends of the "speech" spectrum, > so to speak. > > But my style is not allowed on this forum. No violation of my > constitutional right to free speech but most certainly a violation of > my speech style. > > Since you are, as you say, interested in the concept of "free speech" > then I assume you are familiar with the concept of "proportionality" > when it comes to curtailing it within the context of this group. > > We've all heard the analogy: free speech does not extend to > shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. That is, a state or > municipality can certainly pass a law in their jurisdiction outlawing > the shouting of "fire" in crowded theatres in order to prevent riots > and trampling of people. But passing a law that outlaws ANY talking > in theatres would most certainly go BEYOND the purpose of such a > statute and be found to be unconstitutional. Why? Because it is not > proportional to the objective persued. Preventing stampeding in > crowded theatres justifies a law banning shouting "fire" at the top > of one's lungs; outlawing any talking (which would include whispering > and idle chatter amongst theatre goers) is not proportional to the > objective sought. > > In the same way, the 35 posting limit per week is, in my opinion, not > proportional to the objective sought. > > I assume that people who support the 35 per week posting limit do not > like so many entries on their FFL list or don't like to receive so > many emails of posts that are, to them, nonsense. > > Well, as I've always maintained, if the above is such an affront to > you, simply opt out of receiving FFL via email or, if looking at > a "message list" on the Yahoo site (which is the way I do it) simply > don't click on the names of those posters you know to be wanton > posters (such as myself). Very simple...and minimal effort on the > part of participants to weed out the posters to whom they object. > > But to limit posts to ALL participants to 35 per week does, in my > opinion, discriminate against those, such as myself, whose speech is > expressed by short, numerous posts. Again, this is a private forum > and Rick et al can make up any rules they want and I'm using the > proportionality test (which exists in the jurisprudence of free > speech law) is meant as an analogy here. But the rule is prejudicial > and disproportionate to what is sought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > My bet is that several of them will still be > > > > smarting because I wrote them off as assholes > > > > yesterday because of *their* past behavior on > > > > this forum, refusing to abide by its rules and > > > > consciously flouting them, going over the post- > > > > ing limit on a regular basis. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > I'm smarting not because you wrote me off as an asshole but > because > > > you refuse to acknowledge that you made something up out of whole > > > cloth just to win spiritual brownie points in a debate you were > > > having with someone on this forum. > > > > > > I'm the one who refuses to abide by the rules of this forum and > who > > > consciously flouts those rules by going over the posting limit on > a > > > regular basis. > > > > > > > > > Ooooh. What a crime. > > > > > > Well, compare my crime to your's, Barry. You fabricated > spiritual > > > knowledge to boost your ego in a game of one-upmanship; I made > too > > > many postings (some would say that this is just expressing one's > free > > > speech) on FFL. > > > > > > I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about your > > > fabricated spiritual information, Barry. > > > > > >
