Many thought I was liberal and a Democrat but deep down I am an autocrat and conservative who fooled around. :-)
On Apr 23, 10:57 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Gabby, your history is your history… although there seems to be a > disconnect or failure to communicate through translation when you > imply you were taught and that you are ‘relatively open and tolerant’. > Perhaps it is a cultural issue and interpretation. > > As to moderation, if your question was how many there are etc., it was > carefully hidden within other verbiage. As to questioning > ‘legitimation’, you have always been free to do that – and have. The > rule about trolling remains in place though… and can be a thin path to > walk in such a situation. > > One whom I’ve lauded over the years who questions authority, Noam > Chomsky, knows this well. (He’s speaking near me in a few days BTW.) > > Such an interpretation of anarchy as he espouses is one I hold dear > and at the same time I know what the results of vocalizing those > questions about authority are – and so should you. Clearly you are not > so naïve as to think that when expressing one’s own beliefs (happy > with them or not) that there is no possible adverse result and that > one need not be self responsible for what they say! > > In closing gabby, for moderation purposes, this group is not a > democracy. It never has been. Only the moderators make such decisions. > And, I do my ‘job’ although not nearly as well as I’d like to be doing > it. In particular, almost none of our standards have been brought up > by moderators for a long time …let alone enforced. Also, I’ve thought > about rewriting our guidelines for years now… but haven’t gotten to > it. Long ago, I believe that Molly had started but it was never > finished. Regardless, since I’m not real happy with my job/ > participation as moderator, it comes to me as no surprise that you > don’t like it either. In fact, as I remember, you have never been > happy with it nor do I believe that you will ever be…happy with it. > > What does wear thin and will no longer be tolerated is the ongoing > sniping and trolling of moderators gabby – no doubt you are well aware > of this and are but testing your limits. There are 3 moderators and > this has been the case here for a very long time now. Votes are easy > and determined by simple majority. And, as a heads up, you have one > vote against you and are very close to gaining another. > > On Apr 23, 4:39 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
