Edg, I think you're going waaaaaaaaay overboard about all this (not just Willytex's post but the whole thing).
If you're getting something positive out of just writing these posts, fine; but if you're going to be crushed if everybody doesn't fall in line with just how you think it should go, well, prepare to be crushed. Seems to me it would be more productive to leave posts that fall into the gray area be and keep an eye out for posts that blatantly cross the line. Thing is, you'll most likely have to wait a while for them, because folks are going to be minding their P's and Q's as long as the issue is fresh in their minds. My sense is that you're anxious to start implementing the ban, but the only posts there are at the moment for you to jump on don't really fall into the category of what folks have been complaining about or how Rick has defined what (if anything) he's going to sanction. Last I saw, before he even warned anybody, he was going to highlight any posts he thought met the criteria for being sanctioned and invite discussion about them. And as I suggested, I doubt there are even going to *be* any such posts for the time being. --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, > > I didn't go very deeply into it, because, well, Rick would know > whatever you seem to know that I don't know regarding this matter. > That and the fact that I am a sinner of this very kind of sinning and > to the same or worst degree. I didn't delineate my own conceptions > because Rick is the one who has the power to describe what a flame is. > I merely bring to his attention a posting that -- even if editorially > reiterative -- "abuses the spirit of our group's intent to keep things > a bit more responsible." To wit: the swear words and the ad hominem > attacks cited have been "actively and mindfully edited into a 'list of > past offenses' for the obvious purpose of attacking the character of > another poster." We've all sinned, but for Willy to single you out -- > gratuitously -- is a flame in my opinion. > > Others may have other issues to "see" in this scenario, but mine is > the first one to pop in my mind. > > Come on, you folks o'light, ain't it a flame on Judy? > > Given that at a this time when we're trying to "begin anew" to have > "community of civility" here that at the least accords each poster the > dignity of having logic, truth, and kindness (sweet truth) applied to > her/his presentation with the expectation that all will enjoy the > benefits of these velvet constraints on our egoic artistries, why the > Willytext posts? We all know, right? If you're silent, thanks for > agreeing with me. > > If there's any aging hippies out there reading this, "Give peace a > chance you hosers!" > > Edg > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Edg, Willytex is quoting old posts (mostly mine) > > from FFL and alt.m.t. Didn't you click on the links? > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Rick, > > > > > > Er, after a hundred posts from folks who seemed to agree to warn > > then > > > penalize someone for flaming, I would think that you'd have warned > > > Willy for his previous post. Now the one below seems to go way over > > > the top into very obvious flaming. > > > > > > Are you going to do this warn-then-ban bit? > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" > > > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > jstein wrote: > > > > > I'd ask Barry to provide examples to the contrary, > > > > > but there wouldn't be any point. > > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143310 > > > > > > > > No, the above is what I actually wrote, citing Wilber, > > > > and showing you to be a liar. > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143497 > > > > > > > > As you know, Willytex, what I was calling Barry's fantasy > > > > was *not* that Lenz had levitated. Liar that you are, you > > > > omitted the context to make it seem that I had. > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/140399 > > > > > > > > Your team of profligate liars and racketeers lost > > > > in '06 and continues to lose. > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143504 > > > > > > > > Horseshit. > > > > > > > > Classics from the alt.m.t. Groove Yard > > > > http://tinyurl.com/74d95 > > > > > > > > From Judy Stein to Willytex: > > > > > > > > Liar. > > > > No, liar. > > > > Wrong, liar. > > > > Bite me, toots. > > > > Non sequitur, liar. > > > > Yes, it does, liar. > > > > Willytex is a liar. > > > > No, she did not, liar. > > > > Yeah, it's a non sequitur. > > > > As usual, Willytex is the liar. > > > > Outright, deliberate falsehood. > > > > Bob Dole is a liar, just like you. > > > > Another right-winger bent on deception. > > > > You've been lying your head off for months. > > > > And that's just an outright, deliberate falsehood. > > > > You snipped the context to obscure that fact, liar. > > > > Boy, do you need a course in the fundamentals of logic. > > > > > > > > > His "opinion" about the general usage here of the > > > > > term "liar" is also incorrect, in my observation. > > > > > It's rare that someone is called a liar for merely > > > > > expressing an opinion about someone else. If it > > > > > does happen, it's likely to be because the person > > > > > using the term knows that the person expressing > > > > > the "opinion" has evidence that clearly documents > > > > > the inaccuracy of that "opinion." > > > > > > > > > >
