Just the other day I have been talking with my mother about how it came about that my sister and me were raised to become relatively open and tolerant. She said that this was what we taught her and them and that this is what they have been given back to us. Don't get me wrong, orn, our path is not the one I would recommend to anyone.
As for the moderation issue, I understand that it is necessary for a larger group to have moderators. My question was, how many there are at the moment and who is actively deciding over what is good for a group and who should be sent on moderation or get banned. The next step would be to question their legitimation. You're right, I am coming from a democratic background. And as for belief and reality, I am still happy with my own. Part of it is the exchange here on this platform. Do your job, orn, but do it right. And learn to speak for yourself if you mean yourself. On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected] > wrote: > The truth here gabby is that this is a moderated group. It is not a > democracy. You have never liked this truth. > > And, the truth is that I have had issues with moderated groups over > the years too so to some extent understand why it may not taste so > good to you. The difference is that for this one little group which as > you so rightly point out has long ago lost most of its active > membership, the moderation is what kept it going as an active and > vital group during its zenith. > > The truth is you and I differ on whether an email group should be > moderated. I believe it should. > > The truth is that railing against the reality of moderation and > continuing to post to and be a member of a moderated group is just not > accepting reality. > > The truth is that your self-defined ‘open provocation’ is and always > has been blatant trolling…something that this group has never > accepted… something the group creators agreed to reject from the > moment of Minds Eye’s conception. > > The truth is that you need only be ‘nervous’ if you want to continue > to post here yet cannot adapt to and accept this simple reality. > > You have had this pointed out to you on more than one occasion by more > than one moderator. You continue to ignore reality. Do so at your own > peril. > > > > On Apr 23, 2:28 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > All right. Subtle trolling is a good definition for spinning. Agreed. > > > > Now as for my intension or the purpose of my last posting here: it was > meant > > to be an open provocation to get you out of your comfort zone. And it > > worked. You responded. Too late for my personal taste, the group has > almost > > ceased to be. But then let's hope I am wrong. I'll ask you again, don't > you > > think it's time to follow the Dalai Lama's example and update the methods > of > > how leaders are elected and how their roles are defined? Are you the only > > one left here to decide what is right and what is wrong? Are we dependent > on > > how nervous your fingers get over the ban button? What is the truth apart > > from the make-belief that is being displayed here? > > > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 3:27 AM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....subtle, yet trolling nonetheless. Cease. > > > > > On Apr 22, 1:58 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > (syncing to making flat assumptions:) Ah, so that's why God doesn't > send > > > ME > > > > responses to my questions and I'll have to be forever afraid of God's > > > next > > > > fart that will blow me on the moderation list. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > RP, thanks again for responding. > > > > > > > I'll assume that you don't believe that god thinks conceptually the > > > > > way humans do, correct?...no thinking using words either, right? > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 7:07 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > God is aware in the sense that He is all or all emanates from Him > and > > > > > > thus automatically He knows everything and doesn't have to be > aware > > > of > > > > > > things like us mortals. In my opinion , we should not conceive of > Him > > > > > > to be conscious in the way that we are because our consciousness > > > > > > entails duality or is encompassed within borders. He is conscious > in > > > > > > us , acts in us but in His separate state He is oblivious of all > as > > > He > > > > > > alone is and creation being changeable and subject to birth and > death > > > > > > is just an illusion. In my view that which is not permanent can > be > > > > > > called an illusion. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > RP, are you suggesting that god is not conscious at all?...that > all > > > > > > > god is/does etc. is unconscious? > > > > > > > > > In either case, are you using one of the more common notions of > > > what > > > > > > > conscious means…like being self aware and knowing what one is > > > doing? > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 1:45 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> In my view , creation was not a conscious act of God , but > rather > > > the > > > > > > >> universe emanated from the unconscious mind of God. He doesn't > > > look at > > > > > > >> us consciously , doesn't connect results with actions , rather > > > > > > >> everything is happening according to laws which exist in His > > > > > > >> unconscious mind. I don't think that any scripture can really > lay > > > down > > > > > > >> definitions of good and bad with His authority , rather > thinkers > > > among > > > > > > >> us can lay down rules which appear logical to them and > accepted by > > > us > > > > > > >> as such. I don't believe in an after-life and consider this > life > > > > > > >> itself to be a spiritual experience. > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Chuck Bowling > > > > > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:55 AM, > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> Hey Chuck, > > > > > > > > >> >> I guess it depends on what you belive God is. > > > > > > > > >> >> If you believe that God is the creator then everything has > Gods > > > > > hand > > > > > > >> >> in it, if you further belive that God is omipitant then > God > > > you > > > > > are > > > > > > >> >> exactly the way that God has designed you to be. > > > > > > > > >> > I believe that god/goddess/gods etc. are icons. They are > > > concepts > > > > > that help > > > > > > >> > people cope with their own frailties and inadequacies. > Whether > > > it be > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > blame bad things on, attribute good things to, or to provide > us > > > a > > > > > path to > > > > > > >> > continue our existence beyond the grave. > > > > > > > > >> >> If you are a gardner, and you splice together two differant > > > plants > > > > > to > > > > > > >> >> gain a desird result, the plant does have a life of it's > own, > > > but > > > > > > >> >> works in the way you have designd it to. So in a real way > you > > > are > > > > > the > > > > > > >> >> manipulator of that plants life, your hand is in all that > it > > > does, > > > > > as > > > > > > >> >> you have designed it. > > > > > > > > >> > Here I would say that the original design was altered. A > much > > > easier > > > > > task > > > > > > >> > than the original design. > > > > > > > > >> > As I may have mentioned in a previous post, I readily accept > the > > > > > possibility > > > > > > >> > that some entity may have created this universe. And, I > think > > > that > > > > > anything > > > > > > >> > with that kind of power would probably appear to be > omniscient > > > to > > > > > us. > > > > > > >> > However, I also believe that it is VERY unlikely that any > entity > > > > > that could > > > > > > >> > have created this reality would bare even the slightest > > > resemblance > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > anything we describe as a god. > > > > > > > > >> > The reasoning for that seems fairly straightforward to me: > > > > > > > > >> > Most of the gods we have created seem to be pretty damn > lame. I > > > mean > > > > > come > > > > > > >> > on. You want me to kill a goat, sacrifice a virgin, or set > fire > > > to a > > > > > wax > > > > > > >> > stick in your honor. REALLY??? And you're going to send me > to > > > hell > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > eternity because I thought the neighbor's wife was a hot > piece > > > of > > > > > tail? > > > > > > >> > Jeesh. As gods go you suck dude. > > > > > > > > >> > Another thing. You would think that god would find a better > way > > > of > > > > > > >> > correcting bad behavior than to fry people for an eternity. > Even > > > we > > > > > lowly > > > > > > >> > humans know that setting someone on fire is not the best way > to > > > > > convince 'em > > > > > > >> > to mend their ways. > > > > > > > > >> > Lastly but not finally. If god created this reality then at > a > > > > > minimum he > > > > > > >> > created one and possibly infinitely more universes. In this > one > > > > > there are an > > > > > > >> > estimated 300 sextillion stars. That's > > > > > 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars > > > > > > >> > if you're looking for precision. You would think that with > all > > > that > > > > > stuff > > > > > > >> > floating around out there that he/she/it would have better > > > things to > > > > > do than > > > > > > >> > make sure that little johnnies prayers are answered with a > brand > > > new > > > > > bike on > > > > > > >> > his birthday. > > > > > > > > >> > My guess is that any entity capable of creating all of this > > > would > > > > > see us as > > > > > > >> > a minor infestation of germs at best. > > > > > > > > >> >> On Apr 20, 5:40 pm, Chuck Bowling < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:32 AM, RP Singh < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > > Whatever work I do and the effort that I make , is it > God > > > doing > > > > > it ? > > > > > > >> >> > > No , I do it all , but It is God who gives me the > strength > > > to > > > > > do it. > > > > > > >> >> > > Without His strength even the resolve to do anything > > > wouldn't > > > > > come to > > > > > > >> >> > > my mind. > > > > > > > > >> >> > Now when you say that God is giving you strength can you > be > > > more > > > > > > >> >> > specific? > > > > > > >> >> > Is he providing your mitochondria with more ADP or is he > > > upping > > > > > your > > > > > > >> >> > serotonin or dopamine levels to give you a greater > feeling of > > > > > reward for > > > > > > >> >> > your accomplishments? > > > > > > > > >> >> > And, if so, can you tell me exactly how he does that? I > mean, > > > is > > > > > he > > > > > > >> >> > causing > > > > > > >> >> > re-uptake inhibition or is he actually producing a > greater > > > volume > > > > > of > > > > > > >> >> > chemical messengers at the synapse? > > > > > > > > >> >> > I guess if it's psychological strength it would have to > be > > > the > > > > > latter. > > > > > > >> >> > If it > > > > > > >> >> > were greater physical strength then you'd probably be > able to > > > > > lift cars > > > > > > >> >> > off > > > > > > >> >> > the ground.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - >
