I can't seem to find the point where you were accused of being the only person that has reminded slip of the guidelines. Would you mind citing it?
On Feb 8, 3:59 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > I know that I am not the only mod to have reminded you of the > guidelines in the recent past, Slip, and if you feel the mods are > "riding you," I suggest you adhere to the guidelines. > > On Feb 8, 6:42 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > and you have no possible way of knowing my bias, my > > judgment or my abilities without referencing a statement. Without > > reference, you are attacking me personally by saying that I am biased > > and lack transparency, which can only be your opinion about my > > character. This is ad hom. <<Molly > > > It could be if you make it that way. Obviously I referencing the > > statement in the post I was replying to. You jumped in and grabbed > > the steering wheel with a comment and link that veer the attention > > away from the core of my comment. Basically you were saying stop > > picking on Vam and "Look" what is happening in your back yard. That > > is bias. You had absolutely nothing to say about my post on the > > Upanishads. > > > Being biased and lacking transparency in written commentary is not a > > character aspect and to point that out as an opinion is not an > > attack. I've received more warnings and advisories from you since > > your mod position than I've had in the past two years. That must say > > something I'm sure. You can ride me and dissect my posts to the point > > of finding something wrong with them but that won't leave me much > > alternative. I've never felt the need to be walking on eggshells as I > > do now and truthfully that affects my ability to express myself > > freely. > > > On Feb 8, 2:40 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It is no more ad hom than Vam's post to me in which I'm labeled with > > > > anger, angst, frustration and as being riled. > > > > The big difference is, Vam was asking you questions about your > > > specific statements. You gave your opinion of my viewpoint, and were > > > not making a statement to a particular statement of mine when you > > > said: "Your bias is predominating your judgment and hindering your > > > ability to see things transparently." You are not referring to a > > > statement, and you have no possible way of knowing my bias, my > > > judgment or my abilities without referencing a statement. Without > > > reference, you are attacking me personally by saying that I am biased > > > and lack transparency, which can only be your opinion about my > > > character. This is ad hom. > > > > > What does your post or your link have to do with my post, besides > > > > nothing? > > > > Your statement referenced the slums in India, and insinuated that the > > > truth of the Upshad teaching is somehow less because of their > > > existance in your statement: "Never mind the Upanishads, I'd > > > rather understand how India supports slum dogs as a viable concept. > > > I > > > find it not only disgraceful but barbaric, primitive and > > > hypocritical. The movie "Slum Dog Millionaire" tells the story. Is > > > there some religious explanation for treating people like the garbage > > > they live in?" > > > - here, your statements make the equation between the religion of > > > India and slums. I therefore sited the slums in your state of Texas, > > > and asked what connection they had to the religion of Texans in my > > > question: "Does this have a connection to the positive aspects of > > > religion?" (the topic of the thread) This is what my post has to do > > > with your post. > > > > > I never suggested in any way that my sentiments were directed to of > > > > confined to any one area of the globe. As a response to the > > > > Upanishads (hello, Hindu?) I would think that any minimally > > > > intelligent person would understand my reference to the slums of > > > > India. > > > > Your language such as "any minimally> intelligent person would > > > understand" and > > > > "disgraceful but barbaric, primitive and > > > hypocritical." and "treating people like the garbage > > > they live in?" indicates outrage or anger. We are only trying to > > > understand your statements. India was the only reference you made. > > > > > You turned it into a pot/kettle theme which revealed a defensive > > > > bias. > > > > Saying that I have done so does not demonstrate that I have done so, > > > but I will say you misunderstand me. I am saying that, unfortunately, > > > deporable living conditions exist for people all over the world. What > > > does that have to do with the positive aspects of religion? > > > > > On Feb 8, 1:45 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > "Your bias is predominating your judgment and hindering your ability > > > > > to > > > > > see things transparently." This is an ad hom attack, Slip, as it does > > > > > not relate to a specific statement that I have made, but rather, your > > > > > opinion of my perspective. As a moderator, I suggest you be more > > > > > careful in your phrasing and respond to specific statements that > > > > > others make. > > > > > > "Emotional retorts such as this irrelevant > > > > > link is clear example." Can a link be emotional? The link itself > > > > > provided factual information reported by the state of Texas, not > > > > > emotional opinion. As Vam also addressed your apparent anger here, I > > > > > will kindly suggest to you that the emotion you percieve may be your > > > > > own. I have no emotional investment here. > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:37 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Your bias is predominating your judgment and hindering your ability > > > > > > to > > > > > > see things transparently. Emotional retorts such as this irrelevant > > > > > > link is clear example. Since when are you worried about thread > > > > > > integrity? > > > > > > > A better visual might be this:http://archone.tamu.edu/chud// > > > > > > > Which is in no way a comparative to India's > > > > > > slums.http://fotservis.typepad.com/photos/mother_india_calcutta_var/slums.jpg > > > > > > > The only real positive aspect of religion is its eventual self > > > > > > deprecation. Human compassion is just that, human compassion born > > > > > > from humanity. Religion is born out of a need to create social > > > > > > strata, the chosen people and the condemned and is ultimately a > > > > > > nuisance, a barrier and a hindrance to equality. > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 8:56 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The same could be said about what goes on in your back yard, > > > > > > > Slip,http://www.sos.state.tx.us/border/colonias/faqs.shtml Does > > > > > > > this have > > > > > > > a connection to the positive aspects of religion? > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 11:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and I'm so very touched by it. Never mind the > > > > > > > > Upanishads, I'd > > > > > > > > rather understand how India supports slum dogs as a viable > > > > > > > > concept. I > > > > > > > > find it not only disgraceful but barbaric, primitive and > > > > > > > > hypocritical. The movie "Slum Dog Millionaire" tells the > > > > > > > > story. Is > > > > > > > > there some religious explanation for treating people like the > > > > > > > > garbage > > > > > > > > they live > > > > > > > > in?http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfn... > > > > > > > > > Fraternity and Brotherhood? As long as you have the right > > > > > > > > brother? > > > > > > > > > I guess if you pile enough bullshit on top of the bullshit you > > > > > > > > won't > > > > > > > > see the bullshit, right? > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 9:10 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How many here have read the Upanishads ? ! > > > > > > > > > > The two most positive aspects of religion are concepts of > > > > > > > > > fraternity > > > > > > > > > and brotherhood, in times when most of the world were > > > > > > > > > barbarian, on > > > > > > > > > one hand, and the practice of introspection or self - > > > > > > > > > examination, on > > > > > > > > > the other. > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:50 am, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > There have been many discussions here where the negative > > > > > > > > > > results of > > > > > > > > > > religion have been brought up as a side issue to another > > > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start two parallel threads here, one about > > > > > > > > > > the good > > > > > > > > > > that religions and religious people have done in and for > > > > > > > > > > the world, > > > > > > > > > > and the other about the bad things that have come from, and > > > > > > > > > > been done > > > > > > > > > > because of religion. > > > > > > > > > > > In this thread, lets concentrate on discussing the positive > > > > > > > > > > contributions of religion. The good acts, the positive > > > > > > > > > > results of > > > > > > > > > > religious teaching, and the positive things that can be > > > > > > > > > > learned from > > > > > > > > > > reading the "source books" of religion, such as the Bible, > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Upanishads, the Koran, and other writings that are > > > > > > > > > > considered "Holy" > > > > > > > > > > by any religion. > > > > > > > > > > > A historical time-line might also be useful, correlating > > > > > > > > > > the beginning > > > > > > > > > > and growth of each religion to historical events and trends > > > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > places where the religion was spread.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
