[FairfieldLife] Re: Jurassic Park: our feathered friends...
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Thomas Jefferson I loves me some Thomas Jefferson. But this quote is incomplete in itself. I don't know if he corrected it in context. He lived under (and helped create) a system of representative democracy with only land owner free men as voters. He could not anticipate a time when there would be such plurality that a foreign religious sect voting block was possible. Or even just a segment of Deists or Christians who had wacky religious agendas and a ton of cash to influence the legislative process. Tolerance as a virtue is much more simple when we use it as we do in our common everyday life. Once it hits the Mix-O-Matic of the voting, legislative, lobbying through campaign finances, it starts to pick our pockets again. We find religious ideology coming into public policy so that restrictive laws aimed at abortion clinics can impose a practical reversal of Roe V Wade, especially for the poor. And this is due to a religious ideology that intends to subvert the system of laws by using it against itself to impose a religious belief on the res of us. If the premise of your religion is that only practicers of it are rewarded with eternal reward, any lip service paid to tolerance is superficial window dressing. The role of government is to anticipate the intolerant core of religious beliefs and make it harder for certain religious groups to get their way legislatively. Campaign reform would be a start as well as taxing religions. We have to give up the concept of protected ideas (in the name of tolerance) and challenge bad religious ones held for poor reasons, like we do for every other human idea. And I am not talking about only scientific standards, just good thinking skills we use in a rigorous approach to history or the soft sciences. Mankind must be challenged on the idea that a human created book is speaking for an omnipotent God. This process is already happening in society although it is going to take a long time. But look how well we did in our opinions about witches. Remember when that was an occasion to break out the marshmallows? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Mark Twain nails it, Ann, as does Thomas Jefferson. Two all time greats! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : An interesting quote, to be sure. Tolerance sure goes a long way when discussing religion or atheism. We despise all reverences and al objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us. Mark Twain It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Thomas Jefferson Seems like most of the major religions get that, with one major exception. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : I was given, as a present, a subscription to a little magazine called The Sun. It is a great little publication and there were a few quotes about God in there in the most recent issue that were worth a look at. Here is one, not necessarily on topic: Half of the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions... are fact. and the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies. Joseph Campbell ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to be part of it after these years. Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll be watching your BATGAP presentations. Come back and visit us anytime. JR Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I loved FFL and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of this site was brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his reasons or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally I wish he had handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and that seems to be run like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he created here. I am not gunna throw shade over all the good years because of this last action. Especially when a good option exists for people who don't trust the current moderator. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Not sure what all the fuss is about. Things change. People change. It's not like we don't have choices. Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), let me know. I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department. Anyway, keep up the good work!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I am glad to hear it was offered to you and that it was your choice. I don't blame you for not wanting it. I also appreciate your information about the security issues. That pretty much destroys any chance of being protected if someone goes after you online on one of these groups. Good to know. Ownership of FFL was offered to me several years ago, and I turned it down. Had he asked me again, I'd have turned him down again. Yahoo's anonymity system has the gaping security hole that lets Ravi post, with little that I can do to stop it; I don't mind that Ravi does it, because he's not a dick about it. But, it's a potential source of tremendous abuse, and it's not possible to turn off the anonymity feature. Also, I wouldn't want to take on management of the off-site archive, where posts can only be deleted by the site's administrator. I like my new group just fine, and if I do say so myself, it's a shining example of Maharishi's idea of the perfect government: an enlightened dictator. -JaiGuruMe! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to be part of it after these years. Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll be watching your BATGAP presentations. Come back and visit us anytime. JR Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I loved FFL and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of this site was brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his reasons or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally I wish he had handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and that seems to be run like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he created here. I am not gunna throw shade over all the good years because of this last action. Especially when a good option exists for people who don't trust the current moderator. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Not sure what all the fuss is about. Things change. People change. It's not like we don't have choices. Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), let me know. I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department. Anyway, keep up the good work!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jurassic Park: our feathered friends...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Which one of RD's did you read Curtis? Me: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is the book I am referring to. It is my favorite of his. S: I often recommend his stuff on here because he is such a clear communicator and it's obvious he is as knocked out about the whole life thing as I am. I can honestly say that The Blind Watchmaker changed my life in teaching me how to think about evolution properly, how complexity grows, we get an idea about how it works from school but that often leaves a lot to be desired. Me: Great book too. S: All of his science books are worth reading, a favourite of mine is The Ancestors Tale which tracks human evolution backwards through our known common ancestors. A great story and also good as a dip in anywhere bedside book. Me: Thanks that sounds fantastic. One of my favorite topics for producing the same wonder buzz I used to get from religion. S: People here might like Unweaving the Rainbow which takes a lot of new age myths and beliefs about crystals and suchlike and explains the actual science behind them, which is of course, a lot more interesting. Me: Michael Shermer is also a good guy for debunking beliefs. S: The Selfish Gene underlines how different a way of thinking you need to really get to grips with evolution. Life is a series of mistakes, if DNA was perfect at it's job (making copies of itself) life on Earth would be just a sea of identical cells. Far out. Me: I agree, this is one of the things that seems so counter-intuitive to us. It is a Copernican shift that you have to make to get the mechanics of evolution. S: The only one of his I haven't read is The God Delusion as he was preaching to the converted. I bought a copy for my Dad in an amusingly ironic suggested books for Christmas sale at a local shop. Me: I skimmed it. Sam Harris is a better guy for me for an anti religious perspective because he has had his mind blown in altered states meditation. I have my differences with Sam too but at least I think he understands that we all weren't JUST idiots. We were having compelling internal experiences that we needed explanations for. S: The conversation about what memes society should have predominating is a good one but I think he's better off sharing his enthusiasm and wisdom about his favourite subject. Me: I believe that people who have had a religious experience and belief system come into Atheism a bit humbled. In my case I can't read any version of clap trap nonsense that I was not the believer in and often in a much stupider form! I relate more to people who lost their religion rather than people who never had any beliefs like that. I can admire them, but that was not my path, and I don't always feel understood by them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I recommend Richard Dawkins' book on evolution if anyone wants to get a better handle on what it actually is than we can remember from biology class. When I read it I found that I had some odd perspectives that needed adjusting. We are by nature drawn to teleological perspectives (ones that presuppose a goal) because we are order loving and pattern seeking creatures. The statistics of evolution are extra sensory in scale and counter-intuitive. It turns out that the genes can do different things to men and women and some genes prospered in certain environments that we don't live in now. Think of how many humans got whacked by the most recent ice age. So we are left with a gene set that survived that condition that may hurt us today. Non reproducing individuals are no surprise if the gene does something else over the population that leads to more people with that gene. Again we suck at statistics so we see one person and draw bogus conclusions before we can blink. Perversely we think we are good at this inductive reasoning. We equate our feelings of certainty with the probability it is true. Dawkins' book was humbling because there was so much about the theory that I didn't understand. This is the grand theory that is the basis for understanding all life on earth. It has been successful in prediction, before we had the fossil record to back it up. It has given us a coherent perspective on how life evolved on earth and no fossil record has contradicted it. I suspect that if you gave the theory a chance by reading something in depth about it, you would find your need for any intervention along the way unnecessary. Rather than needing to postulate intervention, you may see how often the mechanics of evolution by removal of maladaptive mutations, and an abundance of mutations through unimaginable periods of time, makes it look as if a goal was predetermined. Which one of RD's did you read Curtis? I often recommend his stuff on here because he is such a clear communicator and it's
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jurassic Park: our feathered friends...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I believe the concept of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof helps a bit. I believe it is also important to resist the tendency to fill in gaps. It is perfectly reasonable to say that you saw an object in the sky you could not identify, a UFO, but you don't have an reason to bring in the aliens without more evidence. You see that kind of cognitive jump by the crop circle dudes. We don't know how these were made is a world apart from It could only be aliens! The hardest part is facing how much work it takes to be able to say we have a true anomaly. I believe that is a bigger factor than comfort zones in knowledge. Most of us would love to discover something new and unique, especially scientists. But many events require a high level of commitment before the evidence is worked out and scientists go with what they consider higher probability questions. Sure, we have to stay in our comfort zones. I guess there's a fine line between staying with what seems likely and logical, and being willing to venture into what we can't explain through conventional means. As I said, previously, there are enough anomalies that can't be explained with our present understanding of physical laws that would make one, or at least me, be open to possibilities that violate these physical laws at least as we presently understand them. And in many cases the only way to discount those anomalies is to dismiss them as the result of some undetected fraud. In other words, instead of acknowledging that there may be something behind the pale, we resort to this more comfortable explanation. Exactly. Stick to what we know, if someone makes claims beyond what we know as normal it's wise to ask for greater evidence than usual. Any theories about super powers or ideas of a life beyond this one have to take into account how our normal experience or expectations made this jumping off into newer, unknown realms. How did that work? Are these realms waiting for us to discover them? Sounds unlikely to me, where did they come from? If god made them, how come he let us evolve the hard way? Siddhis too sound unlikely to me, as the mental faculties we have were evolved for a particular environment. That we can extend our minds beyond normal experiences begs the question of how evolution could have favoured using something that isn't already visible to us in everyday life. What type of thing would it make the mind if it could manipulate matter and explore the world telepathically, or even develop an opposition to gravity? This makes Darwinism one of the easiest theories to disprove - or at least suffer a seriously major rewrite - just demonstrate a siddhi and we're done... So, I'll just leave it at that. And, it's not that I really know how all of that has worked out. It's a work in progress for me, as well. Best way to be. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Help from more evolved souls at various points. Basically some of the woo woo stuff commonly dismissed. An example might be, pushing development from going in a more primate direction to a more human direction. Something along these lines. Well, the only comment I can make is that these more evolved souls must have, erm, evolved too! Um, no, I was not trying to slip in the notion of God with my comment. And it had nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality. I tend to believe that a various times an intervention occurred to push the progress of mankind in one direction or the other. An intervention from what then? I am intrigued... I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. Here's a thought for you to play with, the idea of an intervention implies a god right? If you are using the presence of homosexuality as proof that god intervened, wouldn't he have done so in the opposite direction? He isn't a notorious gay lover is he... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jurassic Park: our feathered friends...
I recommend Richard Dawkins' book on evolution if anyone wants to get a better handle on what it actually is than we can remember from biology class. When I read it I found that I had some odd perspectives that needed adjusting. We are by nature drawn to teleological perspectives (ones that presuppose a goal) because we are order loving and pattern seeking creatures. The statistics of evolution are extra sensory in scale and counter-intuitive. It turns out that the genes can do different things to men and women and some genes prospered in certain environments that we don't live in now. Think of how many humans got whacked by the most recent ice age. So we are left with a gene set that survived that condition that may hurt us today. Non reproducing individuals are no surprise if the gene does something else over the population that leads to more people with that gene. Again we suck at statistics so we see one person and draw bogus conclusions before we can blink. Perversely we think we are good at this inductive reasoning. We equate our feelings of certainty with the probability it is true. Dawkins' book was humbling because there was so much about the theory that I didn't understand. This is the grand theory that is the basis for understanding all life on earth. It has been successful in prediction, before we had the fossil record to back it up. It has given us a coherent perspective on how life evolved on earth and no fossil record has contradicted it. I suspect that if you gave the theory a chance by reading something in depth about it, you would find your need for any intervention along the way unnecessary. Rather than needing to postulate intervention, you may see how often the mechanics of evolution by removal of maladaptive mutations, and an abundance of mutations through unimaginable periods of time, makes it look as if a goal was predetermined. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Now, that is a question worthy of consideration. I find it hard to be a strict evolutionist. I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Let's see those neo-Darwinians explain this one! Hmm, maybe they were originally for keeping warm and became useful for catching insects or mating displays. Or maybe they just helped it run faster? Feathers are deformed scales so they must have had some sort of advantage early on or they wouldn't have got very far. Don't suppose you'd accept enhanced cuteness as an explanation? If I had a time machine this is the sort of problem I would work on... http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h View on tinyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: This may be unpleasant and embarrassing for you, Curtis, but in the interests of adjusting your perspective in the direction of reality, you might want to keep an eye on Barry's FFL2 posts yourself, noting how many of them have been about moi. (Count the lies in his current post about our conversation and about my purportedly stalking him from forum to forum.) Then have a look here on FFL for how many posts I've made about Barry's FFL2 posts. Doesn't sound appealing, I know, but it'll do you good. Me: I'll just take you at your word. You see Barry enjoys what he is doing and doesn't complain that he would be writing all sorts of other wonderful stuff if only you would stop posting about him. I haven't ever claimed that Barry doesn't post a lot about you, he does. He doesn't pretend it is more than it is or that he doesn't enjoy it. Same for me. You are, by the numbers my favorite person to communicate with. I am not on a holy jihad of correcting your errors, (although many of my posts involve that) I am having fun typing here and you are usually game for an exchange. It gives me a prompt for writing (I know how you feel about this) in a specific direction and you are usually good for a round or two, so it works for me. You two mostly write past each other which is not as appealing for me. I was never a big fan of reading your exchanges and don't plan to start now. It is a choice, at least for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Well, Curtis, you've managed to nudge this discussion farther and farther away from the actual issue, which was your erroneous claims that Barry's mistake (lie?) about who started the Subud discussion was an insignificant detail, and that I had missed the point of his Is Doug Hamilton Possessed? post. This is a standard bit of your flim-flammery when you realize you're losing an argument you should never have started in the first place. And then it degenerates into meaningless insults. That's the stage we're at now. I'll leave you to continue flimming and flamming.
[FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Well, Curtis, you've managed to nudge this discussion farther and farther away from the actual issue, which was your erroneous claims that Barry's mistake (lie?) about who started the Subud discussion was an insignificant detail, and that I had missed the point of his Is Doug Hamilton Possessed? post. Me: It remains insignificant and you had missed the point. Judy: This is a standard bit of your flim-flammery when you realize you're losing an argument you should never have started in the first place. And then it degenerates into meaningless insults. Me: I never lost any argument about Barry's big mistake. He got that insignificant detail wrong. Your pattern is to miss the forest for the trees but be too stubborn to take any feedback. It is one of your odd charms that never fails to amaze me. I can never guess which little fact you will fixate on to derail the conversation from what I consider the main point. In this case it was obviously that Buck was giving some positive spin to Subud which for an ex teacher is comical. It is like having someone post that they like to say their mantra to a Reggae rhythm while posing as a TM hard liner. It was funny. Whether or not Buck introduced the topic before he expressed his opinions on it wasn't Barry's point or the subject of my amusement about it. You were in your own rabbit hole as usual and I am left wide eyed at how you did it again. Judy That's the stage we're at now. I'll leave you to continue flimming and flamming. Me: You are saying that so I know what you are referring to when you were complaining about discussions degenerating into meaningless insults right? Are you even aware of how silly you sound with so little self awareness about your own writing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : snip Doug (not Buck) said he hadn't heard Maharishi say anything about Subud. (Barry made fun of him for that, but then t3rinity chimed in that he hadn't heard anything either. Another Oooopsie! for Barry.) As I said, what Doug wrote seems to me more like a call for more information, given that Wikipedia didn't say anything about its involving spirit possession. Me3: It was on TTC. I forget if Buck was made a teacher. Buck and I also heard tapes of him talking about this on our rounding courses as MIU students. So you say. I'll leave that claim for Doug to deal with if he's so inclined. Me4: We took the same rounding courses with the same tapes. So yes, that is what I am saying. Judy: Barry is the primary source of all the upheaval relating to FFL; he's the main reason for the split-off to The Peak, and for Rick deciding moderation of FFL was necessary. That's a heavy set of consequences for which Barry is very largely responsible, and he knows it (though of course he'd never admit it). He's having a really tough time dealing with it. But one thing making it easier is that he can now lie freely about FFL, its moderator, and its TM supporters. It seems to me that's a fact of potential interest to FFLers. Me2: I have people whose posts I don't read so I don't get this power he holds on you. Judy: What on earth does your DNR list have to do with anything? ME3: Because it shows how an adult would handle a situation of not liking how someone posts instead of going to read him when he posts on another site. You are powerless to avoid him like a moth to the flame. Still makes no sense to me, sorry. Me4: Nor to me. Never understood your behavior amidst your faux protest routine. Me 2:All this drama about having to create a new group because of him seems bogus to me. If you don't like someone, don't read them. If you decide to read them, then enjoy the ride you are creating by doing so. Judy2: Oh, this is just prissy high-horse rubbish, Curtis. Go back to Feste's cocktail party analogy. FFL is like a very long-running cocktail party. When it's dominated by a person who gets his jollies from sadistically attacking people, it's not that easy to ignore. You yourself agreed with me that the whole button-pushing bit is basically a crock. For that matter, you've often become quite wroth when you've been attacked. Me3: When I am I either show where I disagree, mock their attack or just skip it as I ended up doing with our most famous R. You act as if there is only one choice. Well, no, I don't, actually. I've done all three with Barry as well, as you know. Me2:I enjoy our conversations even though we don't agree on much and I often feel misrepresented by you. I don't really get why you can't see that Barry provides you with your favorite writing prompts here no matter where he is posting. Judy2:
[FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Of course it was Mike Dixon who brought it up Me: This Judy nitpick is such a classic. It reveals both humor impairment as well as an ability to completely miss the point of the writer. It is fascinating to see it in action on someone else where it is so clear. You caught Barry in an insignificant detail about a topic's posting history, who brought the topic up. Of maybe you didn't really catch a mistake, I am not going to dig through the posts to find out if Barry even said it this way. It misses the point which is: Barry noticed that Doug was giving a positive spin on Subud which when I was made a teacher was one of the only groups of people we were not allowed to initiate. My guess is that someone from this group went all flying room at initiation because they go off whenever hypnotic conditions are present. Or maybe the very superstitions Maharishi was afraid of them. It isn't Barry accusing Buck he is making a joke which Judy completely misses because she has her must-get- Barry spin contacts on and she can't take them off. Given Buck's penchant for adapting different writing styles and old timey language Barry made a joke about Buck perhaps having an issue with spirit possession. And since I have heard from at least two Fairfielders that his persona in person is radically different from who shows up here, he may be on to something. I keep going back and forth between: she really doesn't understand a writer's point, to: she is using this distraction technique to manufacture complaints about someone who is now on a completely different forum now, but is followed by disciples here as if there was still on FFL. All I know is that Barry's spirit has possessed some people here fer real real. First he forced them to click on his posts when he was on FFL and to read whatever he wrote that offended them. Now his magical woo woo has extended across groups and he can force people who claimed they want nothing to do with him to scurry over to another group, click on what he writes, and then get their outrage buzz so they can then scurry back here and report how bad he is. If it ain't spirit possession then it is some mighty big mojo on the loose. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : BARRY BULLETIN: Barry's in a state of some considerable confusion. He's accusing Doug of having brought up Subud here and of seeming to promote it; he wonders whether Doug has been secretly *practicing* Subud for some time. Of course it was Mike Dixon who brought it up (see last quoted post below). Doug didn't even speak up until after Mike, Bhairitu, S3raphita, and emptybill had been discussing Subud for 10 posts. I'm telling you, it really is another world over there on FFL2. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Described this way, “..wholly conscious throughout and free to stop” this part of Subud does not necessarily sound like spirit or entity possession but much more like the ashram community practices coming out of meditative quietism of the old Amana Colony lineage and in Shaker village ashram practices or on courses learning the TM-Siddhis. “but simply to intend to surrender to the Divine. During the exercise, practitioners may find that, in terms of physical and emotional expression, they involuntarily move, make sounds, walk around, dance, jump, skip, laugh, cry or whatever. The experience varies greatly for different people, but the practitioner is always wholly conscious throughout and free to stop the exercise at any time.” ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Don't know how Subud was actually portrayed by someone back then on courses to M. However there seems a spectrum of concern from spirit-ism as 'possession' and to 'channeling', to an earnest TM [spiritual] interest in cultivating ritam bhara pragya readings of pakritis of nature. Where is Nablusoss1008 when we need his specialized discernment on this subject here? By description, Subud it seems starts with a quieting or transcending meditation and then various kriyas can start up. That evidently is not uncommon in meditative practices. Bhairitu offers, Possession is not part of TM or most any other form of meditation. It is a part of other paths rituals not limited to Subud. In tantra we have ways of removing possession. Emptybill writes: Yep, well said. Spirit possession is not related to the practice of TM or any form of yoga - whether described by Patanjali or codified in the Agamas and Tantras of Vaishnavas, Shaivas or Shaktas. MMY said Subud is a form of spirit possession. Whether it is an actual spirit-entity or an amorphic spirit energy, it is still a form of mind-body discordance that cedes control of the nervous system. That alone marked Subud as verboten to MMY. I heard him say so in one of my TTC's - maybe at
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I'm not sure I see the point of these Barry bulletins. Why don't you post them on FFL2? Barry is no longer on this forum, and I doubt whether anyone here wants to read about him. He was booted off for very good reasons, so why keep raising his ghost here? Me: I think it is obviously because Barry cannot defend himself here. So he whole premise that he had to be removed because he was so scary and awful that tender hearts needed to be protected from him turns out to be a ruse. It is still a game of gotcha on Barry but now some posters here can do it without seeing his response on this site, they have to click another tab on their browser to get their Barry fix. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Below is Barry's comment on my bulletin (posted only a little over a half-hour later--he must have been checking FFL every hour or so). Note that he doesn't acknowledge his biggest goof, that it was Doug who brought up Subud. That wasn't part of the joke; that was Barry being so anxious to find something to bash Doug with that he just didn't notice who had made the first post. (Or maybe he did notice and figured nobody on FFL2 would bother to check, so he'd get away with the lie.) Note also that I didn't even mention the possessed idea. That was obviously what Barry thinks of as a joke and was what the smiley face referred to. And of course Doug wouldn't have bothered to respond, much less freak out. I think Barry has been *shattered* by the events of the past months, starting with the consequences of his baby-abuse post in November. And now he's penned in with people who think like he does, and none of his usual targets within easy striking distance. He's having a very tough time keeping himself together, and it's only going to get worse. Didn't you notice the smiley face at the end of my post? I was mainly joking about Doug actually practicing Subud, although the idea of him being possessed really *would* explain much. :-) I posted what I did to see whether he'd freak out and post something insane over on FFL in response. So far, the only person who has done that, however, was the Judenator. She's dumb enough to fall for *anything*. :-) :-) :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Correct-a-mundo! Yes, I made the original post. I was bringing up the subject to see how many people remembered what Maharishi said about it. He did not like it at all. Seems he had some knowledge about it, I thought , from traveling in and around Indonesia and Singapore. He did say it had something to do with Spirit possession and caused problems with mind/body coordination. We were not to initiate anyone practicing it until they had given it up for at least six months. He, M, was very serious about it. I came away with the impression, from what M was saying, that it was worse, for your evolution, than doing drugs. From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 8:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers BARRY BULLETIN: Barry's in a state of some considerable confusion. He's accusing Doug of having brought up Subud here and of seeming to promote it; he wonders whether Doug has been secretly *practicing* Subud for some time. Of course it was Mike Dixon who brought it up (see last quoted post below). Doug didn't even speak up until after Mike, Bhairitu, S3raphita, and emptybill had been discussing Subud for 10 posts. I'm telling you, it really is another world over there on FFL2. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Described this way, “..wholly conscious throughout and free to stop” this part of Subud does not necessarily sound like spirit or entity possession but much more like the ashram community practices coming out of meditative quietism of the old Amana Colony lineage and in Shaker village ashram practices or on courses learning the TM-Siddhis. “but simply to intend to surrender to the Divine. During the exercise, practitioners may find that, in terms of physical and emotional expression, they involuntarily move, make sounds, walk around, dance, jump, skip, laugh, cry or whatever. The experience varies greatly for different people, but the practitioner is always wholly conscious throughout and free to stop the exercise at any time.” ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Don't know how Subud was actually portrayed by someone back then on courses to M. However there seems a spectrum of concern from spirit-ism as 'possession' and to 'channeling', to an earnest TM [spiritual] interest in cultivating ritam bhara pragya readings of pakritis of nature. Where is Nablusoss1008 when we need his specialized discernment on this subject here? By
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Post, Judy
Thanks for the suggestion Alex. I appreciate your taking precautions against people who wish to do real harm while we are trying to enjoy some open conversations. I think your idea makes it much clearer when someone crosses the line. If I knew then what I know now before starting on FF... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Yesterday, on FFL2, I addressed the the issue of Curtis or Vaj subscribing to FFL2. I would request that they join with email identities that search engines won't immediately link to any online presence they want to protect from search rankings shenanigans. Rick's business is Search Engine Optimization, and he understands all that stuff. Me? The only thing I know about SEO is that it exists. And, until I go into business making edible fetishware out of sous vide grass-fed brisket and have a website of my own, I'm not likely to ever know anything else about SEO. I don't want to deal with non-anonymity that needs to be protected by me according to the whims of search engine algorithms. Meet me half way: use an identity that doesn't directly link to your protected real life, and I'll smack down on anyone who posts stuff that connects the two identities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : It's funny because that is exactly how I feel about FFL now. Aren't people just so interesting how they can see something in such very different ways? I mean it, this just never fails to fascinate me. M: I guess my comment only makes sense in context of what Alex has done with with people who are trying to get at people in the real world on the Freer site. He is erring on the side of thoughtful caution to promote an environment for free speech. Sure people say things that may hurt other's feelings. He is not going after that. He is taking out people who are going beyond that. And even though I love Edg as a brother, I thought Alex's correction of his hyperbole about stalking Buck in he real world was a good call as he clarified what Edg really meant. He is providing actual safety without curtailing free speech. Free speech sounds very positive and something we all want, right? But free speech as demonstrated on FFL and a million other forums around the planet often takes the form of gratuitous insults and mean-spirited bullshit and, yes, trolling. When someone wants to say something, anything, and they want the right to say it, no matter the consequences, they might describe this as free speech and aren't we all just a little bit enamored of this idea as promoted by our very constitution of the UUUnited States. But, for me, the idea of freedom of speech as it manifests itself at, of all places FFL, makes me laugh because I just can't take it seriously. If Doug were to ban me tomorrow for spelling meditation wrong I would simply walk away and fail to, in any way, feel like my right to freedom of speech was taken away. As far as the trying to get at people in the real world I would ask you this: what is it about what you are doing at FFL that you are afraid of others knowing about? What is it that you don't feel okay about? I mean, are you someone who is one thing in the real world and another thing here? If you are another thing here then who are you in the real world? I just can't take this all as seriously as you do and I still have a job in the real world. And anyway, Rick always took down those who blew the cover on those who wished to remain anonymous for one reason or another; it isn't just Alex who is enforcing this. My suggestion, when you do subscribe to FFL2 don't use CDB - you are easy to find even for a techno-dolt like myself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Post, Judy
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : It's funny because that is exactly how I feel about FFL now. Aren't people just so interesting how they can see something in such very different ways? I mean it, this just never fails to fascinate me. M: I guess my comment only makes sense in context of what Alex has done with with people who are trying to get at people in the real world on the Freer site. He is erring on the side of thoughtful caution to promote an environment for free speech. Sure people say things that may hurt other's feelings. He is not going after that. He is taking out people who are going beyond that. And even though I love Edg as a brother, I thought Alex's correction of his hyperbole about stalking Buck in he real world was a good call as he clarified what Edg really meant. He is providing actual safety without curtailing free speech. Comments start here: A: Free speech sounds very positive and something we all want, right? But free speech as demonstrated on FFL and a million other forums around the planet often takes the form of gratuitous insults and mean-spirited bullshit and, yes, trolling. When someone wants to say something, anything, and they want the right to say it, no matter the consequences, they might describe this as free speech and aren't we all just a little bit enamored of this idea as promoted by our very constitution of the UUUnited States. But, for me, the idea of freedom of speech as it manifests itself at, of all places FFL, makes me laugh because I just can't take it seriously. If Doug were to ban me tomorrow for spelling meditation wrong I would simply walk away and fail to, in any way, feel like my right to freedom of speech was taken away. Me20: I don't believe you have a firm grasp on the concept of free speech. By your mocking presentation I am gunna guess that you live in a society that protects it so you take it for granted. A: As far as the trying to get at people in the real world I would ask you this: what is it about what you are doing at FFL that you are afraid of others knowing about? What is it that you don't feel okay about? I mean, are you someone who is one thing in the real world and another thing here? Me2: This is why I took the time to answer. I can hardly believe that I would have to explain this.This is an odd spin that I am doing something that I am afraid of someone knowing about. I don't want a potential employer's first impression of me when that Google me is a post from a site I use for discussing philosophical beliefs, some of which are in a category that has been persecuted in society for most of human history. Do I try in my real life to stay off religious topics when I am at the company picnic? Yeah, I do because I understand appropriate context. I also don't drop F bombs around kids.In terms of discussion spirituality that is usually reserved for close personal friends. FFL has been a community where I am able to discuss my inner beliefs or lack of them. Think of jacking up the search engines like dropping a person right next to their boss at the dinner table while in the middle of a stand up comedy Aristocrats joke competition. And you can't stop from completing the joke once you land. The Aristocrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats The Aristocrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats The Aristocrats (also known as The Debonaires or The Sophisticates in some tellings) is a taboo-defying off-color joke that has been told by numerous stand-up comedians since the vaudeville era. Over time it has evolved from a clichéd staple of ... View on en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats Preview by Yahoo A: If you are another thing here then who are you in the real world? I just can't take this all as seriously as you do and I still have a job in the real world. Me: You own your own business that does not get scrutinized by the highly charged politically correct filter of school systems. When I worked with the public in a capacity closer to yours, I didn't care either. Now I have to. A: And anyway, Rick always took down those who blew the cover on those who wished to remain anonymous for one reason or another; it isn't just Alex who is enforcing this. My suggestion, when you do subscribe to FFL2 don't use CDB - you are easy to find even for a techno-dolt like myself. Me: If you self identify as a techno-dolt you may not be the best person to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Post, Judy
Thanks for the heads up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Be aware that he who shall not be invoked by name subscribed to FFL2 last night. So far, he's behaving himself, and everyone else is completely ignoring him. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Thanks for the suggestion Alex. I appreciate your taking precautions against people who wish to do real harm while we are trying to enjoy some open conversations. I think your idea makes it much clearer when someone crosses the line. If I knew then what I know now before starting on FF... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Yesterday, on FFL2, I addressed the the issue of Curtis or Vaj subscribing to FFL2. I would request that they join with email identities that search engines won't immediately link to any online presence they want to protect from search rankings shenanigans. Rick's business is Search Engine Optimization, and he understands all that stuff. Me? The only thing I know about SEO is that it exists. And, until I go into business making edible fetishware out of sous vide grass-fed brisket and have a website of my own, I'm not likely to ever know anything else about SEO. I don't want to deal with non-anonymity that needs to be protected by me according to the whims of search engine algorithms. Meet me half way: use an identity that doesn't directly link to your protected real life, and I'll smack down on anyone who posts stuff that connects the two identities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : It's funny because that is exactly how I feel about FFL now. Aren't people just so interesting how they can see something in such very different ways? I mean it, this just never fails to fascinate me. M: I guess my comment only makes sense in context of what Alex has done with with people who are trying to get at people in the real world on the Freer site. He is erring on the side of thoughtful caution to promote an environment for free speech. Sure people say things that may hurt other's feelings. He is not going after that. He is taking out people who are going beyond that. And even though I love Edg as a brother, I thought Alex's correction of his hyperbole about stalking Buck in he real world was a good call as he clarified what Edg really meant. He is providing actual safety without curtailing free speech. Free speech sounds very positive and something we all want, right? But free speech as demonstrated on FFL and a million other forums around the planet often takes the form of gratuitous insults and mean-spirited bullshit and, yes, trolling. When someone wants to say something, anything, and they want the right to say it, no matter the consequences, they might describe this as free speech and aren't we all just a little bit enamored of this idea as promoted by our very constitution of the UUUnited States. But, for me, the idea of freedom of speech as it manifests itself at, of all places FFL, makes me laugh because I just can't take it seriously. If Doug were to ban me tomorrow for spelling meditation wrong I would simply walk away and fail to, in any way, feel like my right to freedom of speech was taken away. As far as the trying to get at people in the real world I would ask you this: what is it about what you are doing at FFL that you are afraid of others knowing about? What is it that you don't feel okay about? I mean, are you someone who is one thing in the real world and another thing here? If you are another thing here then who are you in the real world? I just can't take this all as seriously as you do and I still have a job in the real world. And anyway, Rick always took down those who blew the cover on those who wished to remain anonymous for one reason or another; it isn't just Alex who is enforcing this. My suggestion, when you do subscribe to FFL2 don't use CDB - you are easy to find even for a techno-dolt like myself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Post, Judy
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Save them for what? But here is my point, anyone can find you, even techno-dolts if they go google your handle here. It doesn't take a technical genius which neither you or I, apparently, are. Now go nurse those fingers so you can continue to berate us all about lack of freedom of speech here. Me: You are conflating issues together which is part of your misunderstanding. Understanding my point doesn't seem to be your goal and I am fine with that. BTW I am not berating us all about free speech here, I have made my point about Buck's style of moderation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : It's funny because that is exactly how I feel about FFL now. Aren't people just so interesting how they can see something in such very different ways? I mean it, this just never fails to fascinate me. M: I guess my comment only makes sense in context of what Alex has done with with people who are trying to get at people in the real world on the Freer site. He is erring on the side of thoughtful caution to promote an environment for free speech. Sure people say things that may hurt other's feelings. He is not going after that. He is taking out people who are going beyond that. And even though I love Edg as a brother, I thought Alex's correction of his hyperbole about stalking Buck in he real world was a good call as he clarified what Edg really meant. He is providing actual safety without curtailing free speech. Comments start here: A: Free speech sounds very positive and something we all want, right? But free speech as demonstrated on FFL and a million other forums around the planet often takes the form of gratuitous insults and mean-spirited bullshit and, yes, trolling. When someone wants to say something, anything, and they want the right to say it, no matter the consequences, they might describe this as free speech and aren't we all just a little bit enamored of this idea as promoted by our very constitution of the UUUnited States. But, for me, the idea of freedom of speech as it manifests itself at, of all places FFL, makes me laugh because I just can't take it seriously. If Doug were to ban me tomorrow for spelling meditation wrong I would simply walk away and fail to, in any way, feel like my right to freedom of speech was taken away. Me20: I don't believe you have a firm grasp on the concept of free speech. By your mocking presentation I am gunna guess that you live in a society that protects it so you take it for granted. Nope. In case you missed it when I posted it before here it is again: A: As far as the trying to get at people in the real world I would ask you this: what is it about what you are doing at FFL that you are afraid of others knowing about? What is it that you don't feel okay about? I mean, are you someone who is one thing in the real world and another thing here? Me2: This is why I took the time to answer. I can hardly believe that I would have to explain this.This is an odd spin that I am doing something that I am afraid of someone knowing about. I don't want a potential employer's first impression of me when that Google me is a post from a site I use for discussing philosophical beliefs, some of which are in a category that has been persecuted in society for most of human history. I don't believe you. I think it is more likely that some of the discussions you get into with certain people here have escalated and morphed into the kind of shit slinging that you don't want potential employers to see. At the same time they can read other stuff here and realize it is a bit of a shooting gallery with trolls galore and that it's where you choose to spend your time. It is also a far cry from being a religious or spiritual site and could never be mistaken for one. Call me deluded. Do I try in my real life to stay off religious topics when I am at the company picnic? Yeah, I do because I understand appropriate context. I also don't drop F bombs around kids.In terms of discussion spirituality that is usually reserved for close personal friends. FFL has been a community where I am able to discuss my inner beliefs or lack of them. Think of jacking up the search engines like dropping a person right next to their boss at the dinner table while in the middle of a stand up comedy Aristocrats joke competition. And you can't stop from completing the joke once you land. The Aristocrats
[FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
Me: Touche ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : (snip) All I know is that Barry's spirit has possessed some people here fer real real. First he forced them to click on his posts when he was on FFL and to read whatever he wrote that offended them. Now his magical woo woo has extended across groups and he can force people who claimed they want nothing to do with him to scurry over to another group, click on what he writes, and then get their outrage buzz so they can then scurry back here and report how bad he is. (snip) This didn't occur to me at first, but in the above one could substitute Doug for Barry and on FFL2 for here, and it would make just as much sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Of course it was Mike Dixon who brought it up Me: This Judy nitpick is such a classic. It reveals both humor impairment as well as an ability to completely miss the point of the writer. It is fascinating to see it in action on someone else where it is so clear. Looks like you're angling to take over the Master of Inadvertent Irony title, Curtis. You're so anxious to Get Judy that you completely missed *my* point. You caught Barry in an insignificant detail about a topic's posting history, who brought the topic up. Not at all insignificant. The Doug-bash Barry was intent on making wouldn't have been nearly as effective if Doug were seen to have only commented on the thread 10 posts in, rather than having initiated it as Barry claimed. Me2: It was a joke about Buck being possessed. I know from experience nothing will dissuade you once you run down your own rabbit hole so I wont even try to untangle it. Of maybe you didn't really catch a mistake, I am not going to dig through the posts to find out if Barry even said it this way. Right, Curtis, that dishonest Judy probably just made it up. Here's the beginning of the post: I ask seriously, because of a couple of threads he's ranting on over on FFL. A few days ago he brought up the practice of Subud, asking if people had ever heard Maharishi ever talk about it. (I ask seriously refers to Barry's subject heading, Is Doug Hamilton Possessed?) It misses the point which is: No, Curtis, I know what Barry's point was. Ha ha, Doug is possessed (see the subject heading). Just FYI, getting the joke does not necessarily also involve thinking it's funny. By me, this one was pretty dumb; and I was making a very different point in any case. Me2: Yes you clarified that Barry was wrong about Buck bringing it up and tried to shift the attention to that. Barry noticed that Doug was giving a positive spin on Subud It seemed to me that he was asking about the basis for the very negative spin the others were putting on it. But that isn't my point either. Basically, it's that Barry is losing it. He's so wrapped up in Doug-hatred, so obsessed with bashing Doug, that he misread Mike Dixon as DHamilton. (Or he didn't but assumed he wouldn't get caught in the lie.) Me2: And this from the person who brought FFL the apt and clever phrase: inadvertent irony. He got a detail wrong but the point of the joke had to do with what Buck wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Described this way, “..wholly conscious throughout and free to stop” this part of Subud does not necessarily sound like spirit or entity possession but much more like the ashram community practices coming out of meditative quietism of the old Amana Colony lineage and in Shaker village ashram practices or on courses learning the TM-Siddhis. “but simply to intend to surrender to the Divine. During the exercise, practitioners may find that, in terms of physical and emotional expression, they involuntarily move, make sounds, walk around, dance, jump, skip, laugh, cry or whatever. The experience varies greatly for different people, but the practitioner is always wholly conscious throughout and free to stop the exercise at any time.” Me2: Buck took a positive spin on the only spiritual practice I ever heard Maharishi mention as an impediment to TM practice. It IS pretty funny to me too. I was not aware of the thread till Buck commented on it either. Judy: Barry is the primary source of all the upheaval relating to FFL; he's the main reason for the split-off to The Peak, and for Rick deciding moderation of FFL was necessary. That's a heavy set of consequences for which Barry is very largely responsible, and he knows it (though of course he'd never admit it). He's having a really tough time dealing with it. But one thing making it easier is that he can now lie freely about FFL, its moderator, and its TM supporters. It seems to me that's a fact of potential interest to FFLers. Me2: I have people whose posts I don't read so I don't get this power he holds on you. All this drama about having to create a new group because of him seems bogus to me. If you don't like someone, don't read them. If you decide to read them, then enjoy the ride you are creating by doing so. I enjoy our conversations even though we don't agree on much and I often feel misrepresented by you. I don't really get why you can't see that Barry provides you with your favorite writing prompts here no matter where he is posting. Judy YMMV, of course. which when I was made a teacher was one of the only groups of people we were not allowed to initiate. My guess is that someone from this group went
[FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : snip Doug (not Buck) said he hadn't heard Maharishi say anything about Subud. (Barry made fun of him for that, but then t3rinity chimed in that he hadn't heard anything either. Another Oooopsie! for Barry.) As I said, what Doug wrote seems to me more like a call for more information, given that Wikipedia didn't say anything about its involving spirit possession. Me3: It was on TTC. I forget if Buck was made a teacher. Buck and I also heard tapes of him talking about this on our rounding courses as MIU students. So you say. I'll leave that claim for Doug to deal with if he's so inclined. Me4: We took the same rounding courses with the same tapes. So yes, that is what I am saying. Judy: Barry is the primary source of all the upheaval relating to FFL; he's the main reason for the split-off to The Peak, and for Rick deciding moderation of FFL was necessary. That's a heavy set of consequences for which Barry is very largely responsible, and he knows it (though of course he'd never admit it). He's having a really tough time dealing with it. But one thing making it easier is that he can now lie freely about FFL, its moderator, and its TM supporters. It seems to me that's a fact of potential interest to FFLers. Me2: I have people whose posts I don't read so I don't get this power he holds on you. Judy: What on earth does your DNR list have to do with anything? ME3: Because it shows how an adult would handle a situation of not liking how someone posts instead of going to read him when he posts on another site. You are powerless to avoid him like a moth to the flame. Still makes no sense to me, sorry. Me4: Nor to me. Never understood your behavior amidst your faux protest routine. Me 2:All this drama about having to create a new group because of him seems bogus to me. If you don't like someone, don't read them. If you decide to read them, then enjoy the ride you are creating by doing so. Judy2: Oh, this is just prissy high-horse rubbish, Curtis. Go back to Feste's cocktail party analogy. FFL is like a very long-running cocktail party. When it's dominated by a person who gets his jollies from sadistically attacking people, it's not that easy to ignore. You yourself agreed with me that the whole button-pushing bit is basically a crock. For that matter, you've often become quite wroth when you've been attacked. Me3: When I am I either show where I disagree, mock their attack or just skip it as I ended up doing with our most famous R. You act as if there is only one choice. Well, no, I don't, actually. I've done all three with Barry as well, as you know. Me2:I enjoy our conversations even though we don't agree on much and I often feel misrepresented by you. I don't really get why you can't see that Barry provides you with your favorite writing prompts here no matter where he is posting. Judy2: Barry does not provide me with my favorite writing prompts (what a pretentious phrase, writing prompts). Me3: It comes from schools. Those third grade teachers are so pretentious aren't they? I'm not talking about third grade teachers. I'm talking about Curtis using the phrase on FFL. Me4: Wow you really had to reach to create that insult out of nothing. Yes I used a term common in schools about things that prompt us to write. And as far as your writing history here goes, you are most prompted to write by anything that Barry says on this or any other site. J: I'd much rather write about other things (and did, when there was a pause in Barry's jihad against me). You don't provide them either, as it happens. It's a big bore to have to untangle your flim-flam. I vastly prefer discussions that are straightforward and conducted with integrity. Me3: This was worth the whole post. You do know that some of us are aware of your history of writing here right? If you tell me it has bored you or that you would rather write about other things, you are proving my point. You are powerless. And if you have not enjoyed our many long conversations as I have, you are quite pathetic since you engaged in them for so long. I get something out of our discussions which is why I continue to interact with you. Sucks to be you I guess. You have pissed away a large part of your life here doing things you did not want to do, enjoy doing, or get anything out of. Tragic little victim. Thanks, a perfect example of what I mean by flim-flam. Anyone who's aware of my history of writing here knows I've written quite a bit of good stuff. That's the kind of writing I'd *prefer* to do. Me4: I know but that Barry just makes you focus on him again and again and again. I can only imagine how much great stuff the world lost because Barry posted on the same site you did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: for teachers
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : snip Doug (not Buck) said he hadn't heard Maharishi say anything about Subud. (Barry made fun of him for that, but then t3rinity chimed in that he hadn't heard anything either. Another Oooopsie! for Barry.) As I said, what Doug wrote seems to me more like a call for more information, given that Wikipedia didn't say anything about its involving spirit possession. Me3: It was on TTC. I forget if Buck was made a teacher. Buck and I also heard tapes of him talking about this on our rounding courses as MIU students. Judy: Barry is the primary source of all the upheaval relating to FFL; he's the main reason for the split-off to The Peak, and for Rick deciding moderation of FFL was necessary. That's a heavy set of consequences for which Barry is very largely responsible, and he knows it (though of course he'd never admit it). He's having a really tough time dealing with it. But one thing making it easier is that he can now lie freely about FFL, its moderator, and its TM supporters. It seems to me that's a fact of potential interest to FFLers. Me2: I have people whose posts I don't read so I don't get this power he holds on you. Judy: What on earth does your DNR list have to do with anything? ME3: Because it shows how an adult would handle a situation of not liking how someone posts instead of going to read him when he posts on another site. You are powerless to avoid him like a moth to the flame. Me 2:All this drama about having to create a new group because of him seems bogus to me. If you don't like someone, don't read them. If you decide to read them, then enjoy the ride you are creating by doing so. Judy2: Oh, this is just prissy high-horse rubbish, Curtis. Go back to Feste's cocktail party analogy. FFL is like a very long-running cocktail party. When it's dominated by a person who gets his jollies from sadistically attacking people, it's not that easy to ignore. You yourself agreed with me that the whole button-pushing bit is basically a crock. For that matter, you've often become quite wroth when you've been attacked. Me3: When I am I either show where I disagree, mock their attack or just skip it as I ended up doing with our most famous R. You act as if there is only one choice. Me2:I enjoy our conversations even though we don't agree on much and I often feel misrepresented by you. I don't really get why you can't see that Barry provides you with your favorite writing prompts here no matter where he is posting. Judy2: Barry does not provide me with my favorite writing prompts (what a pretentious phrase, writing prompts). Me3: It comes from schools. Those third grade teachers are so pretentious aren't they? J: I'd much rather write about other things (and did, when there was a pause in Barry's jihad against me). You don't provide them either, as it happens. It's a big bore to have to untangle your flim-flam. I vastly prefer discussions that are straightforward and conducted with integrity. Me3: This was worth the whole post. You do know that some of us are aware of your history of writing here right? If you tell me it has bored you or that you would rather write about other things, you are proving my point. You are powerless. And if you have not enjoyed our many long conversations as I have, you are quite pathetic since you engaged in them for so long. I get something out of our discussions which is why I continue to interact with you. Sucks to be you I guess. You have pissed away a large part of your life here doing things you did not want to do, enjoy doing, or get anything out of. Tragic little victim. Love the drama of sadistically attacking and jihad thrown in. Addicts love to talk about their addictions in vivid terms that make it look as if they cannot resist. It makes them feel better about shitty choices they make. Barry continues to control your attention from another site. Without him living in the world and expressing his opinions you would be posting all sorts of wonderful things? And all without the need for writing prompts no doubt! Judy YMMV, of course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Post, Judy
Me: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : It's funny because that is exactly how I feel about FFL now. Aren't people just so interesting how they can see something in such very different ways? I mean it, this just never fails to fascinate me. M: I guess my comment only makes sense in context of what Alex has done with with people who are trying to get at people in the real world on the Freer site. He is erring on the side of thoughtful caution to promote an environment for free speech. Sure people say things that may hurt other's feelings. He is not going after that. He is taking out people who are going beyond that. And even though I love Edg as a brother, I thought Alex's correction of his hyperbole about stalking Buck in he real world was a good call as he clarified what Edg really meant. He is providing actual safety without curtailing free speech. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : The proper context of my comment is in the paragraph below. If Judy was a professional editor of people's words I would have to call her on a completely dishonest presentation of my meaning in the paragraph I wrote. Since she cannot be held to such a high standard, perhaps her presenting what I wrote in a completely different context by her addition of the word just without the surrounding context can just be chalked up to being unfamiliar with how native English speakers use the following words: From the paragraph she refers to: ME: First he tried to make it appear as if there was a justification for removing his enemy by contriving a fey interpretation of the guidelines and pinning it on an idiotic example, criticism of Lynch. This was a classic new-to-power rookie mistake. In his eagerness to assert his personal agenda he miscalculated how transparent his agenda would be if he used an obviously bogus excuse. So backing off of that he switched to a lie, that Rick was the driving force and he was just a servant. Anyone can verify this was a deliberate lie with an email to the list owner. I did, and it turned out to be a fabrication. Here is how Judy summarizes my meaning: (Curtis characterized Doug's initial objection to the Lynch post as just a typical rookie mistake.) ME: It couldn't be a deliberate misrepresentation to my intention in nailing Buck for the rookie mistake of attempting a transparent miscalculation of how transparent his move would be to others, right? Judy you are slipping. YOUR move is the actual rookie mistake. And you are not a rookie so I have to go with some other explanation. I find the two FFL groups completely exhausting in a way one FFL group was not. High five to Alex for moderating in a sane manor. When the dust settles there will only be one FFL for me. The one that is moderated the way he is doing it: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. It's funny because that is exactly how I feel about FFL now. Aren't people just so interesting how they can see something in such very different ways? I mean it, this just never fails to fascinate me. Alex has it right, Buck has it wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : CORRECTION: Over on FFL2, Barry swears hysterically that he didn't say he would never read FFL posts. I thought he had; if not, my apologies. If he did say it and is lying now, I'll allow him to get away with it, because I sure ain't gonna go trawling through his FFL2 posts looking for the one in which he said it. Needless to say, he didn't acknowledge or retract any of the false accusations I noted below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : UPDATE: Although Barry has insisted he will never read FFL posts, in fact he is doing exactly that. This morning he quoted my post to JR in which I noted that Doug had kicked out Barry, Xeno, and MJ not because they were critical of the TMO, but because of their defiant incivility. Barry insists I was mind-reading because, according to him, Doug never said why they were bounced; Barry claims even Rick and Alex don't know. Au contraire, Pierre. Doug was explicit as to why he threw out Xeno and MJ: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418457 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418457 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418463
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Post, Judy
Me: Well you got this right and I do appreciate that: Judy: (BTW, it's manner, not manor. A manner is a way of doing something; a manor is a very big house.) Me: Unfortunately for you that correcton proved my point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Curtis, this is about as convincing as your previous attempt to call me dishonest for purportedly quoting Barry out of context. And your attempts to cast Doug as dishonest are equally flabby. Whole lot of mind-reading going on, isn't there? As well as guilty-until-proven-innocent on the basis of that mind-reading, even for crimes not yet committed. I'm not buying any of it. All this fiddle-faddle is flak intended to distract from the real issues. Enough already. (BTW, it's manner, not manor. A manner is a way of doing something; a manor is a very big house.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : The proper context of my comment is in the paragraph below. If Judy was a professional editor of people's words I would have to call her on a completely dishonest presentation of my meaning in the paragraph I wrote. Since she cannot be held to such a high standard, perhaps her presenting what I wrote in a completely different context by her addition of the word just without the surrounding context can just be chalked up to being unfamiliar with how native English speakers use the following words: From the paragraph she refers to: ME: First he tried to make it appear as if there was a justification for removing his enemy by contriving a fey interpretation of the guidelines and pinning it on an idiotic example, criticism of Lynch. This was a classic new-to-power rookie mistake. In his eagerness to assert his personal agenda he miscalculated how transparent his agenda would be if he used an obviously bogus excuse. So backing off of that he switched to a lie, that Rick was the driving force and he was just a servant. Anyone can verify this was a deliberate lie with an email to the list owner. I did, and it turned out to be a fabrication. Here is how Judy summarizes my meaning: (Curtis characterized Doug's initial objection to the Lynch post as just a typical rookie mistake.) ME: It couldn't be a deliberate misrepresentation to my intention in nailing Buck for the rookie mistake of attempting a transparent miscalculation of how transparent his move would be to others, right? Judy you are slipping. YOUR move is the actual rookie mistake. And you are not a rookie so I have to go with some other explanation. I find the two FFL groups completely exhausting in a way one FFL group was not. High five to Alex for moderating in a sane manor. When the dust settles there will only be one FFL for me. The one that is moderated the way he is doing it: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. Alex has it right, Buck has it wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : CORRECTION: Over on FFL2, Barry swears hysterically that he didn't say he would never read FFL posts. I thought he had; if not, my apologies. If he did say it and is lying now, I'll allow him to get away with it, because I sure ain't gonna go trawling through his FFL2 posts looking for the one in which he said it. Needless to say, he didn't acknowledge or retract any of the false accusations I noted below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : UPDATE: Although Barry has insisted he will never read FFL posts, in fact he is doing exactly that. This morning he quoted my post to JR in which I noted that Doug had kicked out Barry, Xeno, and MJ not because they were critical of the TMO, but because of their defiant incivility. Barry insists I was mind-reading because, according to him, Doug never said why they were bounced; Barry claims even Rick and Alex don't know. Au contraire, Pierre. Doug was explicit as to why he threw out Xeno and MJ: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418457 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418457 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418463 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418463 And according to Alex, ...I think full disclosure is in order. In Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it has not been disclosed if this is just a temporary time-out or permanent (Italics added.) https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417160 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417160 I agree, the reason Barry was expelled is not just apparent but obvious. It wasn't his post about David Lynch, because Doug
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Post, Judy
The proper context of my comment is in the paragraph below. If Judy was a professional editor of people's words I would have to call her on a completely dishonest presentation of my meaning in the paragraph I wrote. Since she cannot be held to such a high standard, perhaps her presenting what I wrote in a completely different context by her addition of the word just without the surrounding context can just be chalked up to being unfamiliar with how native English speakers use the following words: From the paragraph she refers to: ME: First he tried to make it appear as if there was a justification for removing his enemy by contriving a fey interpretation of the guidelines and pinning it on an idiotic example, criticism of Lynch. This was a classic new-to-power rookie mistake. In his eagerness to assert his personal agenda he miscalculated how transparent his agenda would be if he used an obviously bogus excuse. So backing off of that he switched to a lie, that Rick was the driving force and he was just a servant. Anyone can verify this was a deliberate lie with an email to the list owner. I did, and it turned out to be a fabrication. Here is how Judy summarizes my meaning: (Curtis characterized Doug's initial objection to the Lynch post as just a typical rookie mistake.) ME: It couldn't be a deliberate misrepresentation to my intention in nailing Buck for the rookie mistake of attempting a transparent miscalculation of how transparent his move would be to others, right? Judy you are slipping. YOUR move is the actual rookie mistake. And you are not a rookie so I have to go with some other explanation. I find the two FFL groups completely exhausting in a way one FFL group was not. High five to Alex for moderating in a sane manor. When the dust settles there will only be one FFL for me. The one that is moderated the way he is doing it: Protecting people who post from asshole trolls with bad intentions, and letting adults express themselves the way they want. I hope it is back at the original FFL site because of the legacy of all we have put into this place. Alex has it right, Buck has it wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : CORRECTION: Over on FFL2, Barry swears hysterically that he didn't say he would never read FFL posts. I thought he had; if not, my apologies. If he did say it and is lying now, I'll allow him to get away with it, because I sure ain't gonna go trawling through his FFL2 posts looking for the one in which he said it. Needless to say, he didn't acknowledge or retract any of the false accusations I noted below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : UPDATE: Although Barry has insisted he will never read FFL posts, in fact he is doing exactly that. This morning he quoted my post to JR in which I noted that Doug had kicked out Barry, Xeno, and MJ not because they were critical of the TMO, but because of their defiant incivility. Barry insists I was mind-reading because, according to him, Doug never said why they were bounced; Barry claims even Rick and Alex don't know. Au contraire, Pierre. Doug was explicit as to why he threw out Xeno and MJ: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418457 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418457 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418463 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/418463 And according to Alex, ...I think full disclosure is in order. In Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it has not been disclosed if this is just a temporary time-out or permanent (Italics added.) https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417160 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417160 I agree, the reason Barry was expelled is not just apparent but obvious. It wasn't his post about David Lynch, because Doug never deleted it, apparently having rethought that issue. (Curtis characterized Doug's initial objection to the Lynch post as just a typical rookie mistake.) I've said a couple of times now that it was Barry's open defiance of Doug--his declaration that he was going to ignore anything Doug said--that got him bounced, along with many instances of incivility (calling Doug insane, among other insults). Even if Doug wasn't counting transgressions that took place before he was appointed moderator, Barry committed more than enough of them after Doug's appointment to warrant his being thrown off the forum. There really is no mystery at all as to why Barry was kicked out, IMHO. No mind-reading necessary, only Barry's posts and a little common sense. Whether one approves in principle or not, Doug has just been doing his job as designated by Rick. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. If Doug starts to censor negative opinions of TM, you're not just going to hear complaints from the TM critics; TM supporters won't stand for it either. Me: When I was studying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu we used to use a trick to get someone to extend their arm so we could lock it and win the match by forcing them to tap out. When we got on top of them we would push on their throat. This would cause a reflex from them to try to push us away by extending their arm. So to attack the arm we went for the neck. This is what made is such an intellectual sport, like body chess. You and I are interpreting what happened that lead to Barry and Michael getting the boot. By hitting Barry with an outrageous accusation of violating the Yahoo guidelines by criticizing David Lynch, Barry reflexively extended his arm. It was an outrageous claim and a trumped up charge and it inspired an emotional response from Barry about Buck's unsuitability as a moderator in the context of an appeal to Rick to stop him before he did what he ended up doing. NEW MATERIAL STARTS HERE: A: Gee, and this after your lecture about not getting emotional when badmouthed. Me: I am not sure what you are referring to here. I didn't say that Barry was forced to react in that way, it was his choice. I was making a case that it was predictable given the outrageous charges of saying something bad about Lynch. Buck and Barry know how each other tend to post. A: Barry could have made his objections known with civility; he chose not to. Me: We agree on this. A: Sorry, but reflex doesn't cut it in this context, and you wouldn't propose or accept it as an excuse for someone whose views you didn't share losing it on an Internet forum. Me: If you are calling me on the imprecision of the analogy if we focus on the idea of a reflex, implying that Barry HAD to get all uppity with his new master, I concede your point. The analogy is not good as stated. And if by implication my point unfairly made it seem as if Barry was forced, that would be wrong. I believe it was calculated either by foresight or opportunism by Buck who has had a goal for years to clean Barry off his forum. The analogy realigns again if I include that we trained ourselves to have unnatural reactions so we did not thrust out our arms when someone pushed on our necks. Then we learned how to bait our opponent by sticking out our arm and when they predictably went for the arm, we cold reverse the position by knowing where they would move. The exchange between Barry and Buck had all the elements of two opponents giving their best move. And since ref Rick wasn't looking, Buck won the match. (I get it that you would disagree with that parting shot.) END It is not as if Buck has not been very clear about his view of speaking ill of the TM teaching. He has spent years and pretty tirelessly promoted the idea that he views it as on a par with terrorism. After having labeled people who left TM as quitters and other terms mostly used in religious contexts, he has weighed in on free speech. He is not a fan. Drone strikes were used as images to express his opinion about apostates. So it kind of makes sense that people who were in his target demo would feel the laser sight, and low and behold, (lo and behold = look and see) he got the two most vocal critics of TM off the site. Coincidence? Not for me. The two most vocal were also the two most uncivil. Some of the worst offenders of this new policy moved to another site before we could really test if this rule would be selectively enforced or not. Actually the three who were bounced did. None of the others who have shown up there have been big offenders. (Well, maybe Edg.) Salyavin is still here as well as there. So with all the civility appropriate to the new FFL: I believe that your opportunity to stand up for the principle of free speech here was missed in your sense of personal satisfaction that an old rival got canned. Yeah, you said that before. Wishful thinking. Too bad you haven't got a better argument than one based on mind-reading.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Me: We will have to agree to disagree about your conflating actual violence with people calling other people names on a public discussion site. Since you are a fan of old timey wisdom I refer you to the sutra whose rishi congnizer I don't remember. But his cognized truth I do remember. He said: Om shanti shanti shanti, sticksahey and stonesahey may break your bonesahey, but namesistah will never hurt youahey. This teaching applied to children who needed to learn that if you choose to give people the ability to hurt you with name calling you will forever be chasing people around going tisk tisk tisk, you must stop this because I can't handle people thinking of me in a way I can't control. And this is coming from a guy who has drawn as much attempts at emotional hurt as anyone here. I simply chose to see it for what it was, a statement about that person's values and not about me like most adults do who don't require everyone to be nice to them. I have benefited more intellectually from people who went after me with passion than people who high fived me for what I wrote here. We fundamentally disagree with what we find valuable here as evidenced by how you and I have chosen to use this site. As far as David's ideas about spiritual matters go, I don't see enough value in reading posts there, I have been there and done that and have rejected the premises of that world view completely. They have given up the ability to call BS on each other and that means that zero discrimination is going on IMO. Not my cup a tea. B: Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind o.f incivility on their groups Me:As I have pointed out, this is false. Yahoo has done nothing to impose these vague values on this site, this is all your doing. B: these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. Me: They have bought into PC culture that has ruined college campuses as a place for the free exchange of ideas. I do not share your enthusiasm for their wisdom. I work with kids of all ages. Do you know that the prefronal cortex is not even physically developed in adults till they are 24-26? As bright and creative as college kids are, they are physically as much kids as adults. Their values can be passionately held and still wrong, or they may be right. You might have to give examples to see if I agree on a case by case basis, but an appeal to them being old enough isn't going to help your argument without specifics. B: A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. Me: I can't make any sense out of your first sentence. I have no idea if I am comfortable with what you are talking about. At first glance I would say that I am not confused about what is TM, I studied and practiced it a long time. B: But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Me: If you mean that MUM is dealing with their long history of gay bashing and racism I am all for it. After I graduated there was a campus gay purge, did you know about that? One of my classmate friends was one of the targets so I am very clear about that issue that came right from Maharishi's gay prejudices. I also witnessed the National Organization's attitude toward black people in DC when I was chairman so I know they need to give up their religiously traditional oppressive views, that would be good. B:Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. Me: Sorry to be repetitious but you are misrepresenting what the Yahoo guidelines are for in pursuit of your personal agenda here. B: ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. If Doug starts to censor negative opinions of TM, you're not just going to hear complaints from the TM critics; TM supporters won't stand for it either. Me: When I was studying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu we used to use a trick to get someone to extend their arm so we could lock it and win the match by forcing them to tap out. When we got on top of them we would push on their throat. This would cause a reflex from them to try to push us away by extending their arm. So to attack the arm we went for the neck. This is what made is such an intellectual sport, like body chess. You and I are interpreting what happened that lead to Barry and Michael getting the boot. By hitting Barry with an outrageous accusation of violating the Yahoo guidelines by criticizing David Lynch, Barry reflexively extended his arm. It was an outrageous claim and a trumped up charge and it inspired an emotional response from Barry about Buck's unsuitability as a moderator in the context of an appeal to Rick to stop him before he did what he ended up doing. It is not as if Buck has not been very clear about his view of speaking ill of the TM teaching. He has spent years and pretty tirelessly promoted the idea that he views it as on a par with terrorism. After having labeled people who left TM as quitters and other terms mostly used in religious contexts, he has weighed in on free speech. He is not a fan. Drone strikes were used as images to express his opinion about apostates. So it kind of makes sense that people who were in his target demo would feel the laser sight, and low and behold, he got the two most vocal critics of TM off the site. Coincidence? Not for me. Some of the worst offenders of this new policy moved to another site before we could really test if this rule would be selectively enforced or not. So with all the civility appropriate to the new FFL: I believe that your opportunity to stand up for the principle of free speech here was missed in your sense of personal satisfaction that an old rival got canned.Your view requires you to ignore what Buck has already written about ad nauseam as the prelude to how he has actually used his new found power. From a previous discussion of ours, I was able to locate the email from Rick where he states clearly that Buck had been bugging him for years to let him clean up the group. All the time he was posting those tirades about critics being terrorists he was bugging Rick to implement the very plan he has carried out. Rick was concerned that Buck would show up instead of Doug. I believe we also disagree on which one is now on FFL. As an expert in language forms yourself, I am surprised that you refer to him by a different name considering his use of the same tortured language style that Buck was infamous for using. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. (snippo) All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one. Heckled and humiliated? Throwing mud and fruit? We were reading different forums. No, you accused me of doing the same with reference to Xeno. You just don't recognize it when the posters you like do it to others. This is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why Jerry Seinfeld (see meditator reference so it must be good kids) said he doesn't perform on college campuses anymore. This line made my veins run with ice water: Buck: looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. Me: This is on the campus with a committee discussing actionable remedy for free speech if they detect micro-inequalities in what you have said. Am I really the lone voice in the wilderness who believes that this is the language of oppression? Is this what we lived through the 60's for? I am fundamentally opposed to every idea that is expressed by this POV. Buck: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here Me: Again with the conflation of violence and speech. This is critical to the sophistic goal of combining our natural civilized aversion to violence and pair it with someone calling another adult a name in a heated discussion. It is like an advertiser putting up a picture of their product next to a woman who looks as if she might be able to effectively nurse her child using a lady part that cannot be referenced directly because it might reveal the micro-inequality of sexism and might draw down the fire of an actionable remedy. (such creepy lawyer speech to hide creepy intentions.) Buck: by some behavior of some individuals in character as was on FFL but finding actionable cultural movement in progressive civil discourse that seems more broadly afoot otherwise. Me: You know what I hear in this tortured use of language? Intellectual insecurity. I hear this in education circles a lot. People afraid to state something simply and directly because they don't want you to really be able to evaluate the flimsy idea embellished by sophistic lawyer talk BSery. I can clear up the ideas easily: Buck is saying that he is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Curtis, I actually read this message from Doug rather differently. The section below seems to be referring to younger TMers at the university who are pointing out to older TM-movement types that some of the language they use contains these micro-inequities. The young people are not so trained in TM-speak as the older ones, so they are trying to educate them about the limitations or unconscious biases of the TM-speak that has been second nature to TM campus folk for thirty years and more. Here's the passage I am referring to: Me: Yes I agree with you. Sometimes the push to limit free speech comes from the students as in this case which is why Jerry wont play gigs on campuses. But the details are not the problem that I am seeing. Whatever the vague standard they are proposing it is the same routine the establishment runs. Make a statement like only positivity will be tolerated and then you can go after anyone you want. But you are bringing up a cool point about the oppressors being called on language by the students. It is hilarious. They are going to make the PC people more PC in a different PC way! I did a Ventriloquist magic show at South Fallsberg a million years ago for a bunch of Mother Divine types. My contact was an old MIU friend and former World Government Lady. She went over my routine over the show and was very concerned that the dynamic between me and my vent figure partner was not satvic enough because he was making fun of me. Gutting comedic drama of anything that anyone could view as possibly negitive was what she was requesting. Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. If I am correct, this actually would be a positive development from the point of view of those who dislike traditional TM-speak. It's not always possible to tell from Doug's posts exactly what he has in mind, so I could be wrong, but that is how I read it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why
[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents
Given the tools you had, your perspective on your role here, and your explanation about anonymity, I can understand your position better Alex. Since you are now dealing with the level of computer sophistication and crazy that was aimed at F'ing me, and my own explanation of my perspective on it, I hope you can understand mine better. Given the sad state of what has gone on with Mr. From-The Dome, I appreciate your hands off moderation style all the more, so thanks for your service to FFL. I also get your point about Rick being the right person to deal with the issue, so I apologize for implying that you could have helped but didn't. I am a sadder but wiser Web user from this whole FFL experience. The level of malice for no reason from a few exceeded my most cynical expectations. I believe your move to create a Buck-free zone will either put the final nail in the FFL coffin or force Rick to decide what kind of site he wants here. Nice move. It doesn't sound to me that you have been dealt with too fairly here considering the time you have put in serving this cyber community. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Curtis, there was nothing for me to help with. There is no rule on FFL about search engine rankings. It looked to me like you were wanting a weird tangential enforcement of the anonymity rules, but you are not anonymous. When Nabby's anonymity was being violated, I took care of the situation because it was a clear violation of the rules. You went to Rick, and he gave you your own special rule and enforced it accordingly. I don't have a problem with that because it's Rick's group, and he can do as he pleases. For situations like yours, Rick is the one to go to, and it was appropriate that you dealt directly with him. The only fallout for me is that I handle subscriptions, and I'm now burdened with having to look out for a miscreant trying to sneak back in. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : If you're so concerned about your search engine rankings, why did you choose to make them vulnerable to being messed with by directly tying your business identity to FFL? Me: My concerns developed long after I had chosen a name which was purposely not my stage name. It did not originally link with anything except this site. That is still true except Google now prompts if you mean my name broken up. Since no one would search me on the name I used here it was not a problem for years. And casual references don't jack up rankings, it is repeated references in a short period of time that spike the relevance. I never complained about people saying shitty things about me, only when they got focused on hurting me and put in the effort. I did not know when I started posting that I would run into some of the characters who pulled the shit they did. I was not working in schools and under the kind of scrutiny that I am under today. Much has changed in how people search about people casually, so it became a problem over time.If I had a time machine and knew now what I knew then I would have been more careful about sharing anything here. Alex: If you were curtis_ex_tm or something like that, you probably wouldn't have had the problem with R, Me: My name here is not a problem, it is not a natural search. It was the behavior that I already explained that caused the search engine problem. As I explained I am not anonymous on the web. But after I asked two people to stop jacking the search engine rankings linking me here they ramped it up until they were stopped. It was a very specific and unnatural behavior I objected to. Me: and Rick and I wouldn't have to deal with R's continuing annoyance behind the scenes. Me: So his craziness is my fault? Sorry but I am not owning that. Alex:In not protecting your own interests, you've made yourself a burden on others. Me: Your disinterest in helping me with this situation was clear back then and is clear now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines. The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets drowned by recent contributions. The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search engines work to get relief
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zone
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : As someone pointed out down at Paradiso Cafe in Fairfield, Iowa this morning about the creation of FFL2 for the FFL-banished, these fox may not have fun for long by themselves without also having hens to pick on. Making straw-men may suffice for some while and keep them from tearing at each other for some time. The Yahoo-groups guidelines eventually will find and rule them where ever they may go as they meet up with kind people in civil society. Me: Since no one from Yahoo has ever enforced anything like what you are trying to impose here this is wishful thinking from someone who is destroying this place for its own good no doubt, and out of your kindness. Buck: A character of violence in civil society often is that it is self-limiting in nature and the asocial tend to isolate themselves. Me: Your histrionic bogus connection between violence and people having heated discussions here reveals your tenuous connection with a world I recognize. No one isolated themselves, you kicked people off who you didn't like. Alex kindly provided an environment for free discussion without you lording over it. Once you have chased off all the content providers here you will be left with your throne and crown presiding over an empty room. Thanks for better facilitating that, Alex. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : On a whim, I made a FFL free speech zone. Use it. Don't use it. Doesn't matter to me. Just letting you know it's there. Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content. View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Preview by Yahoo Thank God, now maybe we can get some peace around here from all the whining. I think you might have wanted to call the new site australia.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zone
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Doug is right here, and I think calling this new group Free Speech is a misnomer, as Doug implies. It's more a question of civility than free speech. Me: I'll bet our idea of civility would be a pretty close match. But it is a subjective evaluation. The question is who do you trust to make such a judgement call for you? Buck? His view may match yours, it does not match mine. Remember, he canned Barry for what was a personal opinion about Lynch. There was nothing uncivil about it IMO. So freedom means not being subject to that kind of judgement, especially without reasonable recourse to challenge. That is movement freedom where you are free to do anything THEY want. And he didn't save anyone from Xeno and Michael, he just used his power to kick them off because he felt personally insulted. Feste: IIf, say, you go to a party and spend your time there insulting and ridiculing and misrepresenting others, you will likely be asked to leave. Me: I think the analogy is off. It is more like the people you see at the mailboxes in an apartment building. If someone acts like an ass you just avoid them and don't engage with them. Some people here act as if they are forced to read posts. I read very few posts here. What goes on in posts I don't read is really none of my business unless I go out of my way to make it my business by interacting. Feste: But would it be fair to call that a curtailment of your right to free speech? I don't think so. It would just be an adverse commentary on your boorish social behavior, which you would be well advised to amend. Me: The social example is too intimate. It would be like being at a huge New Year's eve party where you can strike up a conversation and if you sense buttholeidtude, you just say, excuse me but I have to go see a man about a horse and leave them standing their with their drink in their hand and their mouth open. Now if the person tries to chase you down and MAKE you listen to them, or if they follow you home, you might need the authorities to straighten them out or get a restraining order. If Buck had earned the groups trust by showing up as a reasonable person whose values more people trusted he would not have gotten this push back. In order to silence critics ,who he refers to as apostates using ominous old time religious language to disparage, he will happily see FFL go under. My guess is that he will get his wish. This place is doomed as an interesting place to have discussions with him judging content. Very few people have been trained in how to discuss ideas without making it personal. You have seen it a million times here. Someone takes a shot at Maharishi or his ideas and then someone goes after them personally. It has happened to me more often than not. I accept that and only continue if the person has something interesting to say to prolong the discussion so I get my writing prompt. I am at peace with the idea that I will have to be insulted by people who can't separate ideas from their identity or are just bitchy people and interact that way. Some very bright people here are personally argumentative and cantankerous. I will happily take the good with the bad to have a conversation that interests me. I don't need anyone making that call for me. Especially not someone who does not share my values of tolerating eccentricity if the person is worth chatting with. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : As someone pointed out down at Paradiso Cafe in Fairfield, Iowa this morning about the creation of FFL2 for the FFL-banished, these fox may not have fun for long by themselves without also having hens to pick on. Making straw-men may suffice for some while and keep them from tearing at each other for some time. The Yahoo-groups guidelines eventually will find and rule them where ever they may go as they meet up with kind people in civil society. A character of violence in civil society often is that it is self-limiting in nature and the asocial tend to isolate themselves. Thanks for better facilitating that, Alex. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : On a whim, I made a FFL free speech zone. Use it. Don't use it. Doesn't matter to me. Just letting you know it's there. Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content. View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Preview by Yahoo Thank God, now maybe we can get some peace around here from all the whining. I think you might have wanted to call the new site australia.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zone
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OK, I have to step in to this fantasyland with a dose of reality. Me: Perfect Judy entrance, lead with breaking rapport... MJ was canned for voicing an opinion about Doug, insulting him by calling him a hypocrite and full of crap. Me: And Buck has insulted Michael and me with all sorts of obnoxious crap including equating our opinions about Maharishi to the activities of terrorist organizations where drone strikes would be appropriate. Both of those terms use by Michael refer to specific things in his behavior they are much more than a generic poopy pants name calling. He was called a hypocrite because he complained to this group for ages about the very kind of judgmental crap he is laying on us here, including the movement endorsed banishment practice for people he doesn't like. With your history of a sharp tongue here I think you are opening yourself up to the same judgement. But it will never be applied to you because you are not posting anti-Maharishi posts so you will never have to worry about Buck. If you want to understand free speech, defend someone's rights whose views you disagree with. Me: Barry got the boot for something other than the David Lynch post, we're not sure what, Me: We don't know why is the point. But the context of Barry's complaint turned out to be the prediction of his own demise which turned out to be true. And now we have two others gone. You don't see a trend? How many will it take? Judy: but that post hasn't been deleted, which suggests Doug rethought his objection to it. My guess is Barry was kicked to the curb for declaring that he was going to ignore anything Doug said, defying both Doug and FFL's owner, Rick, who appointed Doug to implement the Yahoo Guidelines after having received many complaints about the gross incivility on FFL. Could also have been for calling Doug insane several times, among other insults. Me: Buck got criticized for the content he posted here. That is why he got called names, because he showed up as a judgmental oddball and untrustworthy with power. Judy: So far, exactly zero people have been given the bum's rush for criticism of TM. Me: It is not like his views on anti Maharishi opinions is hidden, he has revealed his feelings clearly. He canned people who opposed his power here or insulted him personally. And it just so happens that the people who trust him the least are often people who felt the same way about the movement for similar reasons. Buck provoked Barry's reaction by making a ridiculous accusation that confirmed Barry's fears about getting canned on trumped up charges. Then he provoked others to criticize him by not giving the rest of us a reason for his actions leading others to feel threatened by this kind of moderation. So I get it, you feel safe so you have no problems. One of your enemies is gone, so things worked out for you. But I thought you were a bit more of an advocate of fairness over opportunism. Now as far as Rick goes, I believe Elvis has left the building and we are on our own. But can you really say that you have not benefited by the previous laxity in this kind of judgement in the past? Haven't many of our best conversations or arguments often included some non Buck approved language and sentiments? Et Tu Judy? Other than the opportunism of seeing Barry get what I am sure you feel are his just deserts, is this really the kind of place that encourages lively discussions, knowing that the Church Lady with a 5 O'clock shadow can spring out at any time and declare that pearls must be clutched and someone must be banished? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : insulting and ridiculing and misrepresenting others? MJ was canned for voicing an opinion about Marshy. That's free speech. You perhaps saw it as an insult. I'm sure the comment could have been justified by MJ - If he'd had the chance, but he didn't. No free speech you see. Barry got the boot for a criticism of David Lynch. That too was easily justifiable. I think you have some confusion between your own biases and the right of others to think different differently. Respecting the right of both to exist side by side is the essence of free speech. Got it now? Happy to help. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Doug is right here, and I think calling this new group Free Speech is a misnomer, as Doug implies. It's more a question of civility than free speech. IIf, say, you go to a party and spend your time there insulting and ridiculing and misrepresenting others, you will likely be asked to leave. But would it be fair to call that a curtailment of your right to free speech? I don't think so. It would just be an adverse commentary on your boorish social behavior, which you would be well advised to amend. ---In
[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents
I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines. The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets drowned by recent contributions. The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad he had that background to understand my concerns. So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the last R used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both Vaj and I were concerned with. It is the casual search that we are concerned with, not an in depth investigative profile of our history on the Web. And for that recent and multiples are the way to skew the search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they are in flux. Protecting myself online is about what happens now, not in the past. And for the record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday on the Web since then and he has respected my request. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way shape or form even remotely anonymous. Same deal with Vaj, who even signed his real name to his own posts and then later started throwing hissy-fits when his real name was used. Wanna be anonymous on FFL? Create a username that is used only on FFL and that doesn't even hint at any other non-FFL identity. Do a Google search on salyavin808, Anartaxius, and Xenophaneros, and the only thing you'll turn up is links to FFL. That's how it's done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Just as Maharishi said, the movement belongs to those who move (slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's first shoe dropped. I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the wrong hands. First of all the Yahoo guidelines are just that. They cover Yahoo's back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big deal through relentless repetition. In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Apostates
Hi Share. Comments below. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : salyavin, Jai Guru You! I love how you keep saying bye but remain. Yay! Me: Maharishi would have been appalled by this hijacking of his way to honor his master. He was completely against this even when it was directed toward him. The concept of a guru in the way Maharishi used this term is antithetical to human equality. By combining the buzz word terminology used to maintain a hierarchy with an idea of egalitarianism it basically cancels out the intellectual value and integrity of both ideas and philosophies. S: But you ignored my main point which is people are saying negative stuff and haven't even been in Fairfield, Ground Zero, in decades! Come on guys, get a little hands on and current experience before you wade in! Get a little present day skin in the game! Me: The philosophy of Maharishi is what most people are challenging, not the eclectic beliefs of many FF residents. When I am criticizing Maharishi's teaching, it is targeted at the core beliefs that underlie many movement participant's philosophies. For example, if you believe in the concept of a guru as a person with the kind of insight into life claimed by gurus, then the difference between how this belief gets mixed up in a personal philosophy is irrelevant to the challenge to the idea. Saying for example, I believe Maharishi was enlightened and that enlightened people know the reality of life but I don't follow what he says exactly is just a statement about how incongruent most people's philosophies are. It is not a refutation of the challenge that guru's have not provided enough evidence to support their claims to special states of mind and knowledge about the world. S: But having said that, I realize it's just my opinion, just my preference. And I'm a little OCD so some of the repetition zones me out. My bad! Me: I guess you say this kind of thing to soften your having a personal opinion on something here. I don't believe you need to apologize for that. I think it is great that you love FFL and have chosen those beliefs out of Maharishi's system that serve you. My criticism of his teaching is never a personal attack on your life choices. I wish you lots of happiness and good things for your life while believing sincerely that Maharishi's philosophy is wrong on almost everything it claims. Yes, life, Jai Guru Life, abounds in irony (-: I finally looked up TTFN... From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Apostates ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Though I will miss salyavin's science contributions and Xeno's dry humor and rationality, turq's passion and urbanity, I will enjoy immensely the absence of the deluge of anti TMO offerings, largely because they are made far far away from Ground Zero, so to speak. And I will even more immensely enjoy the more tamasic of said negative rantings. Rajo guna I don't mind so much (-: Hey, whatdya know , I'm still here! Jai Guru Me! But I don't really think there's been a deluge of anti-TMO offerings. What I recall is a lot of people who have personal and first hand experience of the weird cult that is TM have expressed - and justified - opinions that people like you and Buck don't like. Why you don't like it is a mystery to me, this is - or was - a discussion room for people with opinions about TM, the TMO and anything else, to share. It's all on the home page. But now Buck has assumed control and deleted all the interesting posters this place is now effectively just a bliss bunny forum with nothing to say. This is sad. The natural conclusion of censorship is that the only posts remaining are the ones nobody wants to read. Look at what Buck used as an excuse to get rid of MJ. It's pathetic. I can't believe you lot are just going to go along with it and not object. But I guess that's what lifetime in a cult does for you. I remember being in the TMO and voicing a contrary opinion and was told that this is a dictatorship and my opinion wasn't relevant if it contradicted Marshy. Funny thing is, Buck was a victim of this fearful fascism and banned from the domes for ages. He came here to rant about it. Now he's back in the fold he's come over all Jai Guru Dev and wants to treat us (you) the same way he was treated. Ironic huh? Just this morning I was reading that a couple of spiritual teachers are saying that too much social media damages the third eye. One of them is actually closing all of his FB pages. Probably just doesn't like the ability of people to offer a contrary opinion. Bye salyavin, xeno and turq, wishing you all much happiness and good health, etc. Yeah, and you Share. You have been a source of fun here when you posted more. And I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apostates
Sal if you get canned, this place has officially jumped the shark. I couldn't stand the place without dissenting voices like yours. You have made huge intellectual contributions to the place, and the idea that you are now in a laser sight from such a tiny mind's perspective makes me sick. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote : The hypocrisy from Doug/Buck is breathtaking. What's next from you, Poland? The bloke is an arsehole. If he'd had a millionth of the things to say that the people he's just deleted have this place might limp on for a bit longer but he's just a dumb fuck who reads off the TM bliss brochure to make up for the fact he gave up free thought decades ago. You'd have to be as brainwashed as he is to think otherwise. You're making me laugh. Every time you say bye you keep coming back. That's fine but what's the deal here? Just can't stay away? I'm waiting to get deleted. But Captain Unity hasn't got up yet so I can play around a bit longer. Come on Buck, what's keepin' ya! There's an apostate who needs your attention to stop him telling the truth about things. If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewash146824.html?src=t_freedom_of_speech George Washington http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apostates
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Blimey! I hope you're not leaving us - or about to get the order of the boot. I've praised your writing style twice in recent weeks so I won't repeat myself. I've found your contributions some of the most thought-provoking on FFL. Heretics are essential for an orthodoxy to gain self-understanding and to learn to become self-critical. Me: Right back at you brother. I really appreciate your contributions here and thanks for the high five for my own writing. I don't believe that anything I have written here would be viewed by Rick as grounds for getting booted. Buck may try, but my relationship here is through Rick, and I trust him not to let that happen as long as I don't provide the rope needed to swing. S: Are you a member of any other groups, Yahoo or not? Me: I only post here. S: Like you, I can't understand while FFL members get so upset by robust, critical posts. I'm happy to meet true believers defending MMY and the TMO and also happy to meet those who have long since fallen out of love with the Movement. I read what both parties have to say and make my own mind up in each case. So sometimes debates become heated and insults get exchanged . . . but why would anyone allow a little argy-bargy to spoil their day? Me: It is the patronizing legacy of the movement that causes people to try to treat other adults as if they know better about how they should express themselves, I believe. It comes from a hierarchical model that encourages people to believe that their internal frame of mind is superior. They believe that they don't have to be judged by the actual content and meaning of their words, as adults do when they discuss ideas on their own merit. It is the intellectually lazy way and was ubiquitous in the movement. And you know what? I bought into it too till I was 31 and figured out how hollow it was. So I get where he is coming from but I do not respect it. S: Like you say there is now a real danger that this site could become terminally boring if the more colourful members drift away. Me: I believe it has already had a chilling affect on posting creativity. Content providers should not be controlled by someone whose intellectual contributions can be summed up as a finger wagging tisk tisk. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote : The hypocrisy from Doug/Buck is breathtaking. What's next from you, Poland? The bloke is an arsehole. If he'd had a millionth of the things to say that the people he's just deleted have this place might limp on for a bit longer but he's just a dumb fuck who reads off the TM bliss brochure to make up for the fact he gave up free thought decades ago. You'd have to be as brainwashed as he is to think otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Acropolis Now!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : My experience sitting in the full lotus for an extended period (30 minutes or so), was that it had a remarkable effect on my physiology. But I happened to get a little frostbite on my heel late in the game, and it made sitting in that posture uncomfortable, so I had to give it up. It is one of those areas where I feel western science will find some striking results, if and when it decides to take a closer look. Me: The science of sports medicine has looked into it and their conclusion is that the lotus posture overextends ligaments in the knee which has a devastating affect on knee joint stability. This is made worse by our chair sitting that tightens up our hip flexors. When the hip and knee fight the hip wins. People who sit on the ground a lot and don't value exercise don't notice as much. But as an active skier you might want to look into it before you work on destabilizing that joint too much. Ligament stretching is a common complaint from sports medicine concerning some yoga postures. Sports medicine has revolutionized stretching exercises even in the last two decades. We know so much more about how joints work from all those years replacing them and the millions thrown toward getting professional athletes back on the field. I am a far cry from being able to assume that position now. It is still on my bucket list, for some reason though. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re Would like to try meditating there though - nice and quiet when you get to an isolated spot.: I take it you can do the full lotus posture. I never got beyond the sitting-in-a-chair stage. Do you have to be able to do the cross-legged bit to qualify as a teacher of TM? No need to be able to do lotus to be a TM teacher. Very few people can manage it actually. I did for a while but like most westerners I was too keen to get into it and it wasn't easy enough so I ended up with severe knee pain. I know a few people who are permanently damaged by it with weak knees. Seems like there isn't much point but it does improve the quality of the TM a lot. I was amazed at the difference and wanted to do my whole TMSP in full lotus but they say you need to have been doing it for a decade before you can sit still like that. I see there's a book showing how to master the position. Re the fall-out from the Greek fiasco: I'd wager serious money that it ends up with the Fed having to supply lines of credit to Europe! Another Marshall Plan and we'll see if Europe's politicians can get it right this time around . . . I think it's going to outlast the siege of Troy! My account will have been deleted by the time you read this but it's been nice talking with you. TTFN ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : How could you do TMSP on the beach? Inflatable life raft or some such? LOL, no this was long before my life as a TMer. Would like to try meditating there though - nice and quiet when you get to an isolated spot. The trouble with sitting still on a beach is that insects find you, there are some mighty big and fast spiders out there, not conducive to deep relaxation. What we need is one of these: Could go yogic flying down the beach, that'd raise some eyebrows! From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 5:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Acropolis Now! The Greeks vote for an end to the austerity politics that the EU and IMF have imposed on them since they had to be rescued from bankruptcy. Be interesting to see what happens next, some of them might have to delay retirement past the age of 50, and other horrors. They should never have been allowed to join the Euro anyway, all these poor countries playing on a level field with Germany and France, it was bound to end in tears. So they might as well get it over with and go back to the Drachma. But with all money connected worldwide we'll all feel the effects of a break-up in the Euro. Interestingly the UK has similar levels of public debt, the difference with us is our creditors still think we might be able to pay it back if we destroy more public services and sell the remains to the private sector so the people we owe money to can make even more out of us. It's all gone horribly wrong somewhere, the banks wreck society and have to be bailed out by the government who say they don't have that sort of money lying around so the banks say don't worry, we'll lend it to you. £1.5 trillion later and we still don't know what's going to be required to sort it out. But pity the Greeks, their biggest export is strained yoghurt and there's
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apostates
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : I have long appreciated a lot of the content of what these recently fallen Me: Fallen? Condescending much? You got the power to slip them the mickey and you did it. Nobody fell anywhere you just took advantage of the situation to suit your personal whim. They insulted you and called you out so you got them back. You have a real taste for this power now don't you? Buck: had provided however it is unfortunate how they conducted themselves as they had in posting. As much as some here may assert that moderation here is something personalized about content but active moderation here is simply about alignment with the Yahoo-groups guidelines within a yahoo-group as folks write and contribute to the community here. Me: This is completely bogus, we had no problem with yahoo, you made this up for your power grab so you could impose your personal taste on the site which you begged Rick to let you do for YEARS. Buck:Take a moment to quietly re-read the yahoo-groups guidelines. They are quite reasonable and well thought by Yahoo as guideline for communal membership. Me: quietly? Do you know that you are speaking to adults here? It doesn't matter how quietly we all re-read them none of it means what you are distorting them into. They are purposely vague guidelines, open to personal interpretation and most importantly, never enforced on this group until you hide behind them to allow you to impose your personal views on other adults who you condescend to by talking to us as if we are children who need your correction. You have never shown up here in an authentic way or generated a full paragraph of content that was worth my time to read. People who have Fallen and an instruction to re-read irrelevant unenforced guidelines quietly are two words that reveal you here. I am very familiar with this mentality from my time in the movement and you are not fooling me with this routine. -JaiGuruYou https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : This Geezerfr quip is hilarious in its way. Poland? I had no thought of extending the civilizing influence of these yahoo-groups guidelines over to other groups. I serve simply as a moderator of Yahoo-groups guidelines here at Rick's pleasure. Conceivably I could be invited in to other yahoo-groups like over at The_Peak to help bring some greater inclusiveness and civility to the discussions there too but no invitation has been extended thus far asking for help. For instance Fleetwood over at The_Peak seems to have a group over there running quite well enough in hand within alignment with the Yahoo-groups guidelines. He has not asked for my assistance with establishing the primacy of the Yahoo-group guidelines there. I don't expect to annex Poland next under the Yahoo-groups guidelines either. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote : The hypocrisy from Doug/Buck is breathtaking. What's next from you, Poland?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apostates
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : Me: Thanks for pointing that out to me. Apologies to Buck for misunderstanding his intention for that word choice. I mistook it for his usual old timey fey word choice so it seemed normal. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : I have long appreciated a lot of the content of what these recently fallen Me: Fallen? Condescending much? You got the power to slip them the mickey and you did it. Nobody fell anywhere you just took advantage of the situation to suit your personal whim. They insulted you and called you out so you got them back. You have a real taste for this power now don't you? Buck: had provided however it is unfortunate how they conducted themselves as they had in posting. As much as some here may assert that moderation here is something personalized about content but active moderation here is simply about alignment with the Yahoo-groups guidelines within a yahoo-group as folks write and contribute to the community here. Me: This is completely bogus, we had no problem with yahoo, you made this up for your power grab so you could impose your personal taste on the site which you begged Rick to let you do for YEARS. Buck:Take a moment to quietly re-read the yahoo-groups guidelines. They are quite reasonable and well thought by Yahoo as guideline for communal membership. Me: quietly? Do you know that you are speaking to adults here? It doesn't matter how quietly we all re-read them none of it means what you are distorting them into. They are purposely vague guidelines, open to personal interpretation and most importantly, never enforced on this group until you hide behind them to allow you to impose your personal views on other adults who you condescend to by talking to us as if we are children who need your correction. You have never shown up here in an authentic way or generated a full paragraph of content that was worth my time to read. People who have Fallen and an instruction to re-read irrelevant unenforced guidelines quietly are two words that reveal you here. I am very familiar with this mentality from my time in the movement and you are not fooling me with this routine. Hey Curtis, have a look at Salyavin's posting of that poem. Looks like he is talking about his fallen comrades alright. In case you missed it here it is again. Sounded pretty dramatic to me at the time as well. With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children, England mourns for her dead across the sea. Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit, Fallen in the cause of the free. Solemn the drums thrill: Death august and royal Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres. There is music in the midst of desolation And a glory that shines upon our tears. They went with songs to the battle, they were young, Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow. They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted, They fell with their faces to the foe. They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. They mingle not with their laughing comrades again; They sit no more at familiar tables of home; They have no lot in our labour of the day-time; They sleep beyond England's foam. But where our desires are and our hopes profound, Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight, To the innermost heart of their own land they are known As the stars are known to the Night; As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust, Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain, As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness, To the end, to the end, they remain. :-) (Poem on loan from Robert Lawrence Binyon) -JaiGuruYou https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : This Geezerfr quip is hilarious in its way. Poland? I had no thought of extending the civilizing influence of these yahoo-groups guidelines over to other groups. I serve simply as a moderator of Yahoo-groups guidelines here at Rick's pleasure. Conceivably I could be invited in to other yahoo-groups like over at The_Peak to help bring some greater inclusiveness and civility to the discussions there too but no invitation has been extended thus far asking for help. For instance Fleetwood over at The_Peak seems to have a group over there running quite well enough in hand within alignment with the Yahoo-groups guidelines. He has not asked for my assistance with establishing the primacy of the Yahoo-group guidelines there. I don't expect to annex Poland next under the Yahoo-groups guidelines either. -JaiGuruYou! ---In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apostates
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Hah! I'd intended my praise for Sal! (He seems particularly downcast by today's developments.) Me: That is hilarious since I re-read your post and now can understand why I thought it was for me. I guess I was paranoid since I had just posted a critical post to our trigger happy moderator. Or maybe I am a legend in my own mind and just assume that unnamed compliments MUST be mine! Thanks for your gracious response and I will try not to step in front of your compliments meant for another in the future. But as I enjoy your posts (and prose) also please share the honours between you. As there seem to be a fair few of us who'd prefer a more take-no-prisoners approach to an internet group maybe we should all start a brand-new TM-related site - the only rule being that there are no rules. Re my relationship here is through Rick: can't you have a quiet word with him to pour oil on troubled waters while FFL still has some members left? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Blimey! I hope you're not leaving us - or about to get the order of the boot. I've praised your writing style twice in recent weeks so I won't repeat myself. I've found your contributions some of the most thought-provoking on FFL. Heretics are essential for an orthodoxy to gain self-understanding and to learn to become self-critical. Me: Right back at you brother. I really appreciate your contributions here and thanks for the high five for my own writing. I don't believe that anything I have written here would be viewed by Rick as grounds for getting booted. Buck may try, but my relationship here is through Rick, and I trust him not to let that happen as long as I don't provide the rope needed to swing. S: Are you a member of any other groups, Yahoo or not? Me: I only post here. S: Like you, I can't understand while FFL members get so upset by robust, critical posts. I'm happy to meet true believers defending MMY and the TMO and also happy to meet those who have long since fallen out of love with the Movement. I read what both parties have to say and make my own mind up in each case. So sometimes debates become heated and insults get exchanged . . . but why would anyone allow a little argy-bargy to spoil their day? Me: It is the patronizing legacy of the movement that causes people to try to treat other adults as if they know better about how they should express themselves, I believe. It comes from a hierarchical model that encourages people to believe that their internal frame of mind is superior. They believe that they don't have to be judged by the actual content and meaning of their words, as adults do when they discuss ideas on their own merit. It is the intellectually lazy way and was ubiquitous in the movement. And you know what? I bought into it too till I was 31 and figured out how hollow it was. So I get where he is coming from but I do not respect it. S: Like you say there is now a real danger that this site could become terminally boring if the more colourful members drift away. Me: I believe it has already had a chilling affect on posting creativity. Content providers should not be controlled by someone whose intellectual contributions can be summed up as a finger wagging tisk tisk. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote : The hypocrisy from Doug/Buck is breathtaking. What's next from you, Poland? The bloke is an arsehole. If he'd had a millionth of the things to say that the people he's just deleted have this place might limp on for a bit longer but he's just a dumb fuck who reads off the TM bliss brochure to make up for the fact he gave up free thought decades ago. You'd have to be as brainwashed as he is to think otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : If you're so concerned about your search engine rankings, why did you choose to make them vulnerable to being messed with by directly tying your business identity to FFL? Me: My concerns developed long after I had chosen a name which was purposely not my stage name. It did not originally link with anything except this site. That is still true except Google now prompts if you mean my name broken up. Since no one would search me on the name I used here it was not a problem for years. And casual references don't jack up rankings, it is repeated references in a short period of time that spike the relevance. I never complained about people saying shitty things about me, only when they got focused on hurting me and put in the effort. I did not know when I started posting that I would run into some of the characters who pulled the shit they did. I was not working in schools and under the kind of scrutiny that I am under today. Much has changed in how people search about people casually, so it became a problem over time.If I had a time machine and knew now what I knew then I would have been more careful about sharing anything here. Alex: If you were curtis_ex_tm or something like that, you probably wouldn't have had the problem with R, Me: My name here is not a problem, it is not a natural search. It was the behavior that I already explained that caused the search engine problem. As I explained I am not anonymous on the web. But after I asked two people to stop jacking the search engine rankings linking me here they ramped it up until they were stopped. It was a very specific and unnatural behavior I objected to. Me: and Rick and I wouldn't have to deal with R's continuing annoyance behind the scenes. Me: So his craziness is my fault? Sorry but I am not owning that. Alex:In not protecting your own interests, you've made yourself a burden on others. Me: Your disinterest in helping me with this situation was clear back then and is clear now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines. The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets drowned by recent contributions. The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad he had that background to understand my concerns. So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the last R used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both Vaj and I were concerned with. It is the casual search that we are concerned with, not an in depth investigative profile of our history on the Web. And for that recent and multiples are the way to skew the search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they are in flux. Protecting myself online is about what happens now, not in the past. And for the record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday on the Web since then and he has respected my request. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way shape or form even remotely anonymous. Same deal with Vaj, who even signed his real name to his own posts and then later started throwing hissy-fits when his real name was used. Wanna be anonymous on FFL? Create a username that is used only on FFL and that doesn't even hint at any other non-FFL identity. Do a Google search on salyavin808, Anartaxius, and Xenophaneros, and the only thing you'll turn up is links to FFL. That's how it's done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Just as Maharishi said, the movement belongs to those who move (slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's first shoe dropped. I want to weigh in
[FairfieldLife] My two cents
Just as Maharishi said, the movement belongs to those who move (slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's first shoe dropped. I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the wrong hands. First of all the Yahoo guidelines are just that. They cover Yahoo's back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big deal through relentless repetition. In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion from the group for the contrived offenses. Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from that other guy with his finger on the trigger. Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like posters with an agenda. The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who used to fill in for that role was N. But he was so far from mainstream movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned him just fine. FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative people, willing to put time into this site and create content makes this a valuable place to read. Many of the people, who are behind this change have been very light on detailed, thoughtful content over the years. Provocative people inspire us to write here. It PROVOKES us. It often takes that kind of provocation to decide to take time from our busy lives to share ideas with a bunch of strangers. Our moderator is reacting as if this is his own intellectual fiefdom and the bannings so far have represented his personal offense at posts that he should have taken care of by offering his own clearly stated opposing opinion on. He cut the conversation short because he has never shown any ability or interest in this area of detailed back and forth discussions here. So he is taking out those who do contribute one by one. I do not share the values represented by the current moderator and believe that this is already having a chilling affect on content here. It is limiting the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Acropolis Now!
It reminds me of the old porta-foams for flying. I forget who created those in FF but they were great when I was busy trying to compress my spine twice a day! They had straps for your legs and you could fly anywhere. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : That is almost enough to make me go back to TMSP! From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Acropolis Now! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : How could you do TMSP on the beach? Inflatable life raft or some such? LOL, no this was long before my life as a TMer. Would like to try meditating there though - nice and quiet when you get to an isolated spot. The trouble with sitting still on a beach is that insects find you, there are some mighty big and fast spiders out there, not conducive to deep relaxation. What we need is one of these: Could go yogic flying down the beach, that'd raise some eyebrows! From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 5:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Acropolis Now! The Greeks vote for an end to the austerity politics that the EU and IMF have imposed on them since they had to be rescued from bankruptcy. Be interesting to see what happens next, some of them might have to delay retirement past the age of 50, and other horrors. They should never have been allowed to join the Euro anyway, all these poor countries playing on a level field with Germany and France, it was bound to end in tears. So they might as well get it over with and go back to the Drachma. But with all money connected worldwide we'll all feel the effects of a break-up in the Euro. Interestingly the UK has similar levels of public debt, the difference with us is our creditors still think we might be able to pay it back if we destroy more public services and sell the remains to the private sector so the people we owe money to can make even more out of us. It's all gone horribly wrong somewhere, the banks wreck society and have to be bailed out by the government who say they don't have that sort of money lying around so the banks say don't worry, we'll lend it to you. £1.5 trillion later and we still don't know what's going to be required to sort it out. But pity the Greeks, their biggest export is strained yoghurt and there's only a few of them who pay tax, the rest work for the government I had the best summer ever living on beaches on Greek islands, I got all Jason and the Argonauts cooking fish and potatoes over an open fire every night. Once a week we'd go to a taverna and drink in the culture with dancing and ouzo then watch the stars come out over the sea. All rather excellent. I'd do it again in a heartbeat but I don't know if it's still possible now everything is Euro-legal. Are people allowed to just sleep rough on beaches anywhere? Sleep on the decks of ferries to save money? Loads of European kids used to do it for a cheap summer holiday in paradise, nowadays most are too worried about how dossing about will look on their CV's. Fucking politicians ruin everything..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Roots of TM
Me: It may have been after this that he disappeared for a while before finally accepting the position. The way Maharishi tells this story is that when they did all the pujas for him to be Shankaracharia, he said Are you done, now go. From his perspective it wasn't that he was tricked into it which makes him seem weak, but that the supporters were more enthusiastic about the whole thing than he was. I would have to dig up my notes to see how he claims it went down in more detail but it may be moot now that Paul Mason has done so much research. Funny how the nuances of this period are still fascinating to me after all these years. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re Guru Dev was tricked into accepting the position: I was right! From The TM Technique by Peter Russell (1976), page 23: Every twelve years in India there is a large gathering of saints and holy men at Allahabad where two of the holy rivers, the Ganges and the Yamuna, meet. This festival is called the Kumbla [sic] Mela and it is customary for many of the recluses to come down from the mountains for this occasion. Along with thousands of others Guru Dev had left his cave to attend. Making the best of the opportunity his proponents performed the inauguration ceremony and having been officially invested as Shankaracharya for North India Guru Dev had little choice but to accept the honour. I'm sure I've come across that account in other books and articles. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes.: Didn't MMY say that Guru Dev was tricked into accepting the position? Or am I imagining that I heard that story? If so, I must be going senile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : that is a damn good question - I appreciate you posting this. I am gonna get this book and see what it does have to say, esp. now with this in mind. From: emptybill@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 12:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Roots of TM Anyone read this stuff? These types of biographies contain lots of valuable information. However, all of them tend to be hagiographies written by Western psychophantic householders. Consequently none of them reflect the ACTUAL view of sannyasa held by someone like swami Brahmananda Saraswati. He was not just a sannyasin, but rather a Danda-Sannyasin, which is a specific category of stict renunciation. Danda-Sannyasins have no concern with the world at all. Rather, they take care of simple bodily needs and use their remaining life moments to engage in nididhyasana (contemplation). This means examination of the apparent difference between the Awareness-Self and experience itself. Between Self and Other. Between Brahman and appearances. It also means contemplating the Upanishad declarations that Brahman is reality itself (satyam), Awareness itself (jnanam), limitlessness itself (anantam) and that this apparent world is that very Brahman itself. Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes. PS: Don't bother replying with He loved us so much he wanted to save us from ourselves christian theologizing B.S. Also leave off the He was a great bodhisattva Buddhist B.S. These types of answers will only demonstrate lack of understanding the question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Roots of TM
Re Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes.: Me: Many Homeless people accept help to live inside when they reach the age where it is too hard to continue to camp on public land which is what Guru Dev was doing when they asked him. I never heard about any trickery. He accepted once, then reneged and ran away for a while. Then they convinced him to come live inside. Quite a posh homeless shelter. It was probably hard for an old guy to make such a big change. But the 3 hots and a cot lifestyle has its appeal for a man of a certain age. Even if it comes with people waving camphor and incense in your face occasionally. Reading his words about religion reminds me of other fundamentalist religious people who like to think and talk about God all the time. I gotta figure it was because of a lack of commitment to mastering the guitar. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes.: Didn't MMY say that Guru Dev was tricked into accepting the position? Or am I imagining that I heard that story? If so, I must be going senile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : that is a damn good question - I appreciate you posting this. I am gonna get this book and see what it does have to say, esp. now with this in mind. From: emptybill@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 12:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Roots of TM Anyone read this stuff? These types of biographies contain lots of valuable information. However, all of them tend to be hagiographies written by Western psychophantic householders. Consequently none of them reflect the ACTUAL view of sannyasa held by someone like swami Brahmananda Saraswati. He was not just a sannyasin, but rather a Danda-Sannyasin, which is a specific category of stict renunciation. Danda-Sannyasins have no concern with the world at all. Rather, they take care of simple bodily needs and use their remaining life moments to engage in nididhyasana (contemplation). This means examination of the apparent difference between the Awareness-Self and experience itself. Between Self and Other. Between Brahman and appearances. It also means contemplating the Upanishad declarations that Brahman is reality itself (satyam), Awareness itself (jnanam), limitlessness itself (anantam) and that this apparent world is that very Brahman itself. Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes. PS: Don't bother replying with He loved us so much he wanted to save us from ourselves christian theologizing B.S. Also leave off the He was a great bodhisattva Buddhist B.S. These types of answers will only demonstrate lack of understanding the question.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Roots of TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : As long as he had a dry cave to sleep in, why would he worry about his housing, Me: Throw pillows. If you look at the pictures it is all about the color coordinated throw pillows. M: given the fact that he had that bag was it, the one that GD could reach into and pull out any food or other items he wanted? Me: Tee hee. Swami Rama said that when he met him he was living on chick pea sprouts and salt. M: Reckon what happened to that bag, Me: It ended up in Never Never Land with Peter Pan M: I doubt Marshy had it, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to defraud people to get money. Me: It is interesting that Maharishi was able to sell us on the idea of a technique bringing us to a state of mind that he himself did not credit with producing his own special state of mind. That is why I could relate best to full time people when I was in the movement. We were imaging (accompanied by Maharishi's pitch) that we were living as closely to what he had done as we could. I believed in the techniques, but not as much as I believed in his more subtle message of how he had gained his state of mind through serving the master. I almost asked him to clarify this relationship in India but in retrospect am glad I had not. This was supposed to be an implied teaching, and me asking him to be more explicit in a large group with mixed commitments would have brought down some corrections to my thinking. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2015 10:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Roots of TM Re Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes.: Me: Many Homeless people accept help to live inside when they reach the age where it is too hard to continue to camp on public land which is what Guru Dev was doing when they asked him. I never heard about any trickery. He accepted once, then reneged and ran away for a while. Then they convinced him to come live inside. Quite a posh homeless shelter. It was probably hard for an old guy to make such a big change. But the 3 hots and a cot lifestyle has its appeal for a man of a certain age. Even if it comes with people waving camphor and incense in your face occasionally. Reading his words about religion reminds me of other fundamentalist religious people who like to think and talk about God all the time. I gotta figure it was because of a lack of commitment to mastering the guitar. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes.: Didn't MMY say that Guru Dev was tricked into accepting the position? Or am I imagining that I heard that story? If so, I must be going senile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : that is a damn good question - I appreciate you posting this. I am gonna get this book and see what it does have to say, esp. now with this in mind. From: emptybill@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 12:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Roots of TM Anyone read this stuff? These types of biographies contain lots of valuable information. However, all of them tend to be hagiographies written by Western psychophantic householders. Consequently none of them reflect the ACTUAL view of sannyasa held by someone like swami Brahmananda Saraswati. He was not just a sannyasin, but rather a Danda-Sannyasin, which is a specific category of stict renunciation. Danda-Sannyasins have no concern with the world at all. Rather, they take care of simple bodily needs and use their remaining life moments to engage in nididhyasana (contemplation). This means examination of the apparent difference between the Awareness-Self and experience itself. Between Self and Other. Between Brahman and appearances. It also means contemplating the Upanishad declarations that Brahman is reality itself (satyam), Awareness itself (jnanam), limitlessness itself (anantam) and that this apparent world is that very Brahman itself. Why did Swa. Brahmananda abandon this realization-practice to engage in a role-playing position as a kingly Shankaracharya. This is never addressed by the biographies but is glossed over with pious platitudes. PS: Don't bother replying with He loved us so much he wanted to save us from ourselves christian theologizing B.S. Also leave off the He was a great bodhisattva Buddhist B.S. These types of answers will only demonstrate lack of understanding
[FairfieldLife] Re: Doing full justice to something magnificant
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I'm rushing a bit. Sorry about that. I can see your point about Richard and Barry. Yes, two different situations. Me: Thanks for saying that. Seve:Barry stated on many occasions that nothing would keep him from his mission to demonstrate that TM was a cult, and it's defenders, (except in his narrowly provided parameters) were cult apologists, and that he would not cease from this mission. Okay, so, I reacted to this, because I felt he went about this mission in a dishonest way, often distorting other people's intentions to make sure his point was always proved. Me: That sounds like a party to me. I can understand both of your motivations to interact. Steve: Now, you may disagree with my take on it, but that was my motivation behind my communications with Barry. I'm not really apologizing for it, or feel I need to defend it. Me: Antagonists are not bad for a place where people write, they are essential IMO. Especially if they write as well as Barry or Judy for that matter. You don't have to explain the appeal to me, I get it. Steve: I see you interacting with Judy, one hundred times more than I do, and it leaves me, scratching my head. Me: Because I love Judy. She has done more for my writing than anyone I can think of. There were times when she got me more wound up than I like to be, but that is a power I respect and use for my own goals here. If there was no Judy here, there would never be the level of participation I have engaged in, and it has benefited me in more ways than I can count. Nice extension of our rap, thanks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Lumping together R and Barry is not accurate Steve. R didn't get bounced for being a troll, he violated a much more serious rule, was banned for it once and then came back and did it again, and then continued it on the Peak. He was much more than a guy who starts arguments on the Internet. If anyone had bounced him for just being a troll I would have objected. I simply stopped reading the guy at all so I had no problem with him which is probably why he went the next step to get my attention, but that was on him. His malicious choice. I get it that you wanted Barry gone although I still don't get it since you communicated with him a hundred times more than I ever did. I would think you would miss his writing prompts. But nevertheless, the place can't run on this kind of subjective evaluation. Who can be trusted with that power over other adults? Buck? Maybe you should talk to Rick about this offline to see what I am seeing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Curtis, I can't say we're there yet, but you are approaching what may described as the new FFL. The trolls are gone, and expression, without troll stomping, or troll baiting is indeed, a beautiful thing. http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-... http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg View on covers.booktopia.com.au http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I can't even comment on this right away. I just want it to sink in for the readers. Take it in, let it wallow in your mind. Take a moment, perhaps with a cup of tea, open the windows, hear the birds, breath in the the fresh air of Summer and enjoy something special, nay, something beautiful. In the way an Amazon naturalist might approach a spider in a web face high. Cautiously, with equal parts revulsion and fascination... Exchange from a previous post: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. This refers to I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well (If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status). Pull the moderation levers in the controls refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate (delete posts, bounce people, approve posts before they go up, etc.). Where's the lie, Curtis? Yer gettin' old, Curtis. Your technique is becoming calcified.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reaffirming The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : excuse me for interrupting here, Curtis, but this is quite a distortion. Your issue is primarily with Judy, so come on, is this a martyr play of some sort? Me: My issue is with our new moderator. Judy is just a way to keep the discussion lively. S: most others here value your perspective, because, I found it to be pretty straightforward, and civil, and not a self proclaimed agenda to push peoples buttons. so, maybe you are using your standing here to compare yourself to Barry and in that way elevate his status some, but I sure as hell, ain't buying it. Me: I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am not comparing myself to Barry we had completely different focuses of attention here. But how you and I view me is not an issue. It is that if Buck gets it into his head that I have violated his subjective interpretation of vague rules, any of us can be ousted on a whim with zero transparency. And any cries of that is not fair for an individual you like more than Barry will be met the same accountability, none. I believe you are on the wrong side of this Steve, I really do. Steve:and may I also, say, it's quite an exaggeration trying to compare Doug's moderating to MMY's philosphy of management. . Me: We disagree here, I consider this textbook MMY. Steve:As was pointed out. Two trolls have been removed. Nothing more. Me: Calling them both the same name conflates their violations unfairly. And I don't trust your opinion to be the law here any more than you should trust mine. What is trolling is an imprecise term that could at one time or other be applied to most of us here. What is happening here is that rules are being invoked to cover a popularity contest. I object to that kind of moderation for a bunch of adults who were doing just fine without it. Steve:You seem to trying hard, and quite ingeniously, IMO, to make the appropriate sentence where two trolls have been removed, into a great miscarriage of justice. Me: I am not lumping them together, you are. They should not be mentioned in the same discussion of what is going on here. Steve:Barry was a troll. He's not here, and the site is better off for it. And, maybe if you can stick to what has happened, instead of what might, could (and hasn't) happened, then good things will continue. Me: Steve you trolled him right back. And it didn't affect me either way because it was both of your choices to interact that way and I never had to read or be a part of it. That is what freedom is all about. I appreciate your extending the discussion. I am making my case and some buy it and some don't. But I always appreciate your friendly tone with me and respect that you are expressing your POV about a complex topic. I am pro discussion and anti banning without discussion. So far Doug has stonewalled us on his reasons for banning Barry. So some are making up their own to cover this glaring gap. I am keeping my eye on that gap because I believe it is important to the usefulness of the place for me to post on. I never want to have to think before I hit send:What would Buck think of this post? Steve:Who knows, maybe Barry will be a part of it, at some point. Me: If Rick decides to intervene I believe that will be the case. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Et tu Edg? So if he culls one from the herd unfairly, but you don't like the guy anyway it is OK? Say it is not true my brother, say it is not true. It is only when he comes for you that you will get a sense of conscience? Right now, bouncing me would be more trouble than it would be worth, but by the criteria already used, I am just as vulnerable and so are you. If the criteria is held in secret and is whatever the F he feels like then it is just a matter of time until only the Age of Enlightenment News gets broadcast here. And before I am accused of the slippery slope fallacy, I lived this exact brand of control in the same movement Buck was trained in. He is already referring to opposing his banning with zero accountability as nitpicking. Do you care that he lied about Rick being behind this ban with him? Have you ever been in a room where some sanctimonious prick came bustling in and said Maharishi wants _. And then you find out later that it was just his idea and he wanted to silence dissent ahead of time by invoking Maharishi's name? Before he found this angle Buck was advocating shutting down FFL. He has no love for free discussion here. I challenge anyone to repost any time he has engaged in a back and forth discussion with a participant here, the kind you and I value. Just one. And I double dare anyone to post one where he shows up as a genuine person talking to another adult instead of this constant condescension, first veiled by persona and now in the open. Edg, do ya hear me! ---In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reaffirming The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines
Me: You just saved me some typing time. Excellent, thank you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : But the spirit of FFL was far more interesting than this drivel, and in 10 years Yahoo never made any attempt to change or alter what happened on FFL, Yahoo really does not care what happens in their groups unless it somehow affects them financially. You are also incorrect in using the term re-moderation. This group was moderated, with a light and just hand that allowed far more than now, true freedom of speech. Your lack of transparency in the issues you have handled so far reveals the dark, covert spirit that dwells within. This clandestine spirit is the enemy of truth seeking, and I for one, vote for your removal from this position. I see you have resumed spamming FFL, and this is also a violation of the so-called guidelines. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Dear Friends of FFL; I feel we are moving very much within the spirit and intent of letter of the Yahoo-groups guidelines in the re-moderation we have done thus far spam removed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Doing full justice to something magnificant
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Yeah, pretty hard to manufacture a convincing counterargument, ain't it? Me: Keep digging Ms Doubledown...You are extending my joy. The *fact* is that what Doug wrote isn't explicit either way. Me: Says the person who professionally edits. Keep going... Judy: But what I outlined is the way I read it when it was first posted, and I see no reason to change that inference just because Curtis is desperate to contrive evidence that Doug should be fired as moderator so Curtis can rescue his pal and cheerleader Barry from durance vile. Me: Maybe I clarified the situation with Rick. Think that might be behind my confidence in what is going on here? Judy: BTW, Curtis, looks like the story you made up about Doug twisting Rick's arm to persuade him he needed Doug to moderate FFL has been busted. I'm sure you've seen Ann's post today. Me: I am unfamiliar with her writing here, we have different interests. We all saw Buck's relentless lobbying for this to happen here. There was no arm twisting it was just persistence and the invocation of a bogus problem to be solved, the Yahoo guidelines. Maybe you should just contact Rick before you make a bigger fool of yourself Judy. You are on the wrong side of this and we both know why. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I can't even comment on this right away. I just want it to sink in for the readers. Take it in, let it wallow in your mind. Take a moment, perhaps with a cup of tea, open the windows, hear the birds, breath in the the fresh air of Summer and enjoy something special, nay, something beautiful. In the way an Amazon naturalist might approach a spider in a web face high. Cautiously, with equal parts revulsion and fascination... Exchange from a previous post: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. This refers to I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well (If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status). Pull the moderation levers in the controls refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate (delete posts, bounce people, approve posts before they go up, etc.). Where's the lie, Curtis? Yer gettin' old, Curtis. Your technique is becoming calcified.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reaffirming The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines
Et tu Edg? So if he culls one from the herd unfairly, but you don't like the guy anyway it is OK? Say it is not true my brother, say it is not true. It is only when he comes for you that you will get a sense of conscience? Right now, bouncing me would be more trouble than it would be worth, but by the criteria already used, I am just as vulnerable and so are you. If the criteria is held in secret and is whatever the F he feels like then it is just a matter of time until only the Age of Enlightenment News gets broadcast here. And before I am accused of the slippery slope fallacy, I lived this exact brand of control in the same movement Buck was trained in. He is already referring to opposing his banning with zero accountability as nitpicking. Do you care that he lied about Rick being behind this ban with him? Have you ever been in a room where some sanctimonious prick came bustling in and said Maharishi wants _. And then you find out later that it was just his idea and he wanted to silence dissent ahead of time by invoking Maharishi's name? Before he found this angle Buck was advocating shutting down FFL. He has no love for free discussion here. I challenge anyone to repost any time he has engaged in a back and forth discussion with a participant here, the kind you and I value. Just one. And I double dare anyone to post one where he shows up as a genuine person talking to another adult instead of this constant condescension, first veiled by persona and now in the open. Edg, do ya hear me! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Heh, gotta ask, what's the actual risk of Doug? Will he bounce others? I don't think so. Look at this scurvy's crew's roiling bitching at each other that's going on RIGHT NOW, and he's done nothing about that. Maybe it was a vendetta against the trolls with any reason being enough. So? Yeah, abusive. So? I just don't see this kind of fascism happening again unless someone truly rises to the troll heights -- which was a very high bar being set. Doug chided me about swearing, but nothing since even though I still swear -- this shows his, um, forbearance? Bah, I'm just happy I can post here again without really having to steel myself for the barbs. Short sighted of me, but there it is. If there is a Sword of Damocles, it's a heavy chain holding it up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: You just saved me some typing time. Excellent, thank you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : But the spirit of FFL was far more interesting than this drivel, and in 10 years Yahoo never made any attempt to change or alter what happened on FFL, Yahoo really does not care what happens in their groups unless it somehow affects them financially. You are also incorrect in using the term re-moderation. This group was moderated, with a light and just hand that allowed far more than now, true freedom of speech. Your lack of transparency in the issues you have handled so far reveals the dark, covert spirit that dwells within. This clandestine spirit is the enemy of truth seeking, and I for one, vote for your removal from this position. I see you have resumed spamming FFL, and this is also a violation of the so-called guidelines. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Dear Friends of FFL; I feel we are moving very much within the spirit and intent of letter of the Yahoo-groups guidelines in the re-moderation we have done thus far spam removed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Doing full justice to something magnificant
Lumping together R and Barry is not accurate Steve. R didn't get bounced for being a troll, he violated a much more serious rule, was banned for it once and then came back and did it again, and then continued it on the Peak. He was much more than a guy who starts arguments on the Internet. If anyone had bounced him for just being a troll I would have objected. I simply stopped reading the guy at all so I had no problem with him which is probably why he went the next step to get my attention, but that was on him. His malicious choice. I get it that you wanted Barry gone although I still don't get it since you communicated with him a hundred times more than I ever did. I would think you would miss his writing prompts. But nevertheless, the place can't run on this kind of subjective evaluation. Who can be trusted with that power over other adults? Buck? Maybe you should talk to Rick about this offline to see what I am seeing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Curtis, I can't say we're there yet, but you are approaching what may described as the new FFL. The trolls are gone, and expression, without troll stomping, or troll baiting is indeed, a beautiful thing. http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-... http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg View on covers.booktopia.com.au http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9780747584735/trolls-go-home.jpg Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I can't even comment on this right away. I just want it to sink in for the readers. Take it in, let it wallow in your mind. Take a moment, perhaps with a cup of tea, open the windows, hear the birds, breath in the the fresh air of Summer and enjoy something special, nay, something beautiful. In the way an Amazon naturalist might approach a spider in a web face high. Cautiously, with equal parts revulsion and fascination... Exchange from a previous post: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. This refers to I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well (If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status). Pull the moderation levers in the controls refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate (delete posts, bounce people, approve posts before they go up, etc.). Where's the lie, Curtis? Yer gettin' old, Curtis. Your technique is becoming calcified.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reaffirming The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : (snip) So far Doug has stonewalled us on his reasons for banning Barry. So some are making up their own to cover this glaring gap. Nope, that's a story *you* made up. Nobody's doing that. Me: You are saying you know why he got bounced, I am saying I don't. I am not making up anything by pointing out that we have been not been given a reason. You already agreed to this point did you forget? Judy:When I first saw Barry's warcry of defiance--that he was going to ignore Doug--I thought, Whoops, he's gone too far this time; that's going to get him bounced. That was before we knew there was going to *be* an explanatory gap. And I still think that's what pushed him over the edge of Doug's tolerance. Me: And you might just be right. If that was the reason I would object to it. But we haven't been given the exact reason you are guessing. Judy:Your post to me, Curtis, is flapping limply in the breeze at the moment. I'll get to it later this afternoon. Me: Yeah we have some real gems to discuss, I have not forgotten I am just prolonging the pleasure. Judy: In the meantime, you might just want to look up that post of Ann's I mentioned so you can at least limit your embarrassment over your Doug-twisted-Rick's-arm story by not repeating it. (Goodness knows you don't have the integrity to retract it.) Me: Overlooking the gratuitous personal shots you are taking at me, I looked for the post and only saw a video response and an attaboy agreement with a post. If it is a reason that stands on its own why don't you repeat it. You are trying to Judy me here, focusing on an insignificant detail that is really just an opinion about an inconsequential detail. I got this impression from Buck's months long campaign here and from communicating with Rick. And perhaps Rick doesn't feel as if he was dogged into this. OK, who cares? If Rick says that isn't how it went down OK, that is his view of it and I would accept that. But as Buck's rotted master used to say: the elephant has two sets of teeth, one for show and one for eating. I wouldn't get too carried away on this extraneous point if I were you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reaffirming The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Thanks for your feedback. Curtis, I think I get where you are coming from. I think most of us do. As I recall, Doug did provide some explanation, but perhaps you felt it was just weak cover to get rid of someone who was a perceived enemy, or at least constant thorn. Me: It was an explanation so vague that even Judy is left having to invent her own reasons. It was not something we could point to and say, I know where the new line is. Steve: And, what I am saying, which is what I've said before, I'm okay with that. I get that this lessons whatever marginal respect I might have had in some people's eyes. Me: I would never go that far Steve.I just think you are wrong about this. Steve: How bout this. Why don't you let loose with what you feel would get you banned, and see what happens? Me: Jesus H Christ Steve, you remind me of my older brother advising me to put a wire in an electric socket. Steve: But, here's the kicker. How bout stay true to the Curtis we all know here, and who most of us like and respect? Me: I am a bad example. First I don't roll with obvious targets in my writing here. I don't even like to spell out the F word. I don't like to cloud my point in things that give people an excuse to miss my real point. Second, Buck has to lay low until all this blows over or Rick makes a move. It would prove nothing now. Steve: Michael has indicated he's going to resuscitate his anti Bevan, anti MMY, anti JH, anti Brad O'Nash tirades. How boring will that be! But at least, MJ, in my opinion is not a twister of what people say. He is just a straight, down the line, TM, MMY basher. That is tolerable, IMO. Your writing and insights bring a lot to the place. You have some enemies here, but far more appreciate what you post. Anyway, got interrupted and lost my train of thought. Me: Back at you and thanks Steve. We are all just bozos on this bus. I like the place the way it was, YMMV. Send! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : excuse me for interrupting here, Curtis, but this is quite a distortion. Your issue is primarily with Judy, so come on, is this a martyr play of some sort? Me: My issue is with our new moderator. Judy is just a way to keep the discussion lively. S: most others here value your perspective, because, I found it to be pretty straightforward, and civil, and not a self proclaimed agenda to push peoples buttons. so, maybe you are using your standing here to compare yourself to Barry and in that way elevate his status some, but I sure as hell, ain't buying it. Me: I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am not comparing myself to Barry we had completely different focuses of attention here. But how you and I view me is not an issue. It is that if Buck gets it into his head that I have violated his subjective interpretation of vague rules, any of us can be ousted on a whim with zero transparency. And any cries of that is not fair for an individual you like more than Barry will be met the same accountability, none. I believe you are on the wrong side of this Steve, I really do. Steve:and may I also, say, it's quite an exaggeration trying to compare Doug's moderating to MMY's philosphy of management. . Me: We disagree here, I consider this textbook MMY. Steve:As was pointed out. Two trolls have been removed. Nothing more. Me: Calling them both the same name conflates their violations unfairly. And I don't trust your opinion to be the law here any more than you should trust mine. What is trolling is an imprecise term that could at one time or other be applied to most of us here. What is happening here is that rules are being invoked to cover a popularity contest. I object to that kind of moderation for a bunch of adults who were doing just fine without it. Steve:You seem to trying hard, and quite ingeniously, IMO, to make the appropriate sentence where two trolls have been removed, into a great miscarriage of justice. Me: I am not lumping them together, you are. They should not be mentioned in the same discussion of what is going on here. Steve:Barry was a troll. He's not here, and the site is better off for it. And, maybe if you can stick to what has happened, instead of what might, could (and hasn't) happened, then good things will continue. Me: Steve you trolled him right back. And it didn't affect me either way because it was both of your choices to interact that way and I never had to read or be a part of it. That is what freedom is all about. I appreciate your extending the discussion. I am making my case and some buy it and some don't. But I always appreciate your friendly tone with me and respect that you are expressing your POV about a complex topic. I am pro
[FairfieldLife] Re: Doing full justice to something magnificant
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :Just to clarify (as Curtis seems unable to comprehend a particular point here) Me: Bit of unnecessary condescension. I can comprehend points just fine, I just had not seen your post. Ann: My apologies. My new resolution is to remain positive and to try and engender the same here at FFL (Edg, Steve and I are on the same page with regard to this, evidently). Me2: You and I are cool with each other about 90% of the time Ann. That was very nice of you to say. For me authentic is positive and you are always that. A: Rick approached Buck to see if he was interested in the job as moderator after first offering it to me. Is this clear enough? Me: Thanks for posting this I wasn't going to chase around to find it. I guess Barry would be gone now either way then. Ann: I can't comment on that as I don't know but I don't think anything was premeditated, or at least in my conversations with Rick I was certainly not given that impression. No one was out to get Barry from either Rick or Doug's side at the time I was engaged with Rick on the moderator business. About Buck's relentless lobbying for control of this site, that is in the posting record so your being asked doesn't prove the point Judy seems to think it does. But then this is all Judy distraction from what I consider the real issue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Yeah, pretty hard to manufacture a convincing counterargument, ain't it? Me: Keep digging Ms Doubledown...You are extending my joy. I'll be a lot more impressed if your joy facilitates your coming up with a convincing rebuttal. The *fact* is that what Doug wrote isn't explicit either way. Me: Says the person who professionally edits. Keep going... Judy: But what I outlined is the way I read it when it was first posted, and I see no reason to change that inference just because Curtis is desperate to contrive evidence that Doug should be fired as moderator so Curtis can rescue his pal and cheerleader Barry from durance vile. Me: Maybe I clarified the situation with Rick. Think that might be behind my confidence in what is going on here? Are you asking me to trust your word, Curtis? Really? Judy: BTW, Curtis, looks like the story you made up about Doug twisting Rick's arm to persuade him he needed Doug to moderate FFL has been busted. I'm sure you've seen Ann's post today. Me: I am unfamiliar with her writing here, we have different interests. Oh, that's a good one. You and she have had quite a number of long discussions about matters of common interest (some very friendly, others not so). I'm sure she'll be devastated to learn she's been erased from your memory. Convenient, though, in the present situation. We all saw Buck's relentless lobbying for this to happen here. There was no arm twisting it was just persistence and the invocation of a bogus problem to be solved, the Yahoo guidelines. Maybe you should just contact Rick before you make a bigger fool of yourself Judy. You are on the wrong side of this and we both know why. Check out Ann's post, poopsie. Just to clarify (as Curtis seems unable to comprehend a particular point here): Rick approached Buck to see if he was interested in the job as moderator after first offering it to me. Is this clear enough? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I can't even comment on this right away. I just want it to sink in for the readers. Take it in, let it wallow in your mind. Take a moment, perhaps with a cup of tea, open the windows, hear the birds, breath in the the fresh air of Summer and enjoy something special, nay, something beautiful. In the way an Amazon naturalist might approach a spider in a web face high. Cautiously, with equal parts revulsion and fascination... Exchange from a previous post: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. This refers to I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well (If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status). Pull the moderation levers in the controls refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate
[FairfieldLife] Re: Doing full justice to something magnificant
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :Just to clarify (as Curtis seems unable to comprehend a particular point here) Me: Bit of unnecessary condescension. I can comprehend points just fine, I just had not seen your post. A: Rick approached Buck to see if he was interested in the job as moderator after first offering it to me. Is this clear enough? Me: Thanks for posting this I wasn't going to chase around to find it. I guess Barry would be gone now either way then. About Buck's relentless lobbying for control of this site, that is in the posting record so your being asked doesn't prove the point Judy seems to think it does. But then this is all Judy distraction from what I consider the real issue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Yeah, pretty hard to manufacture a convincing counterargument, ain't it? Me: Keep digging Ms Doubledown...You are extending my joy. I'll be a lot more impressed if your joy facilitates your coming up with a convincing rebuttal. The *fact* is that what Doug wrote isn't explicit either way. Me: Says the person who professionally edits. Keep going... Judy: But what I outlined is the way I read it when it was first posted, and I see no reason to change that inference just because Curtis is desperate to contrive evidence that Doug should be fired as moderator so Curtis can rescue his pal and cheerleader Barry from durance vile. Me: Maybe I clarified the situation with Rick. Think that might be behind my confidence in what is going on here? Are you asking me to trust your word, Curtis? Really? Judy: BTW, Curtis, looks like the story you made up about Doug twisting Rick's arm to persuade him he needed Doug to moderate FFL has been busted. I'm sure you've seen Ann's post today. Me: I am unfamiliar with her writing here, we have different interests. Oh, that's a good one. You and she have had quite a number of long discussions about matters of common interest (some very friendly, others not so). I'm sure she'll be devastated to learn she's been erased from your memory. Convenient, though, in the present situation. We all saw Buck's relentless lobbying for this to happen here. There was no arm twisting it was just persistence and the invocation of a bogus problem to be solved, the Yahoo guidelines. Maybe you should just contact Rick before you make a bigger fool of yourself Judy. You are on the wrong side of this and we both know why. Check out Ann's post, poopsie. Just to clarify (as Curtis seems unable to comprehend a particular point here): Rick approached Buck to see if he was interested in the job as moderator after first offering it to me. Is this clear enough? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I can't even comment on this right away. I just want it to sink in for the readers. Take it in, let it wallow in your mind. Take a moment, perhaps with a cup of tea, open the windows, hear the birds, breath in the the fresh air of Summer and enjoy something special, nay, something beautiful. In the way an Amazon naturalist might approach a spider in a web face high. Cautiously, with equal parts revulsion and fascination... Exchange from a previous post: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. This refers to I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well (If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status). Pull the moderation levers in the controls refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate (delete posts, bounce people, approve posts before they go up, etc.). Where's the lie, Curtis? Yer gettin' old, Curtis. Your technique is becoming calcified.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Doing full justice to something magnificant
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : The other part of Ann's post was that Rick told her he had been bombarded with complaints (presumably from more than one person) about the unpleasantness on FFL. Me: I wonder who these complaints were directed toward? Judy: Curtis, I wouldn't have made a big issue of this if it weren't for the fact that you assert this made-up story in virtually every post you've made about Doug. Obviously you thought it was important, so don't accuse me of using it as a distraction. Doug wasn't the one to convince Rick a moderator was needed, and he was Rick's choice of moderator only faute de mieux. It's Doug's lobbying that is, in fact, the distraction from the real issue. Me: It is not a made-up story. He was lobbying for moderation or for shutting down the site for months. If you don't think he was one of those people bombarding Rick, you would be wrong. Remember I communicate with Rick. Judy: I note also that you can't bring yourself to concede your errors graciously. You just had to take a swipe at Ann. (See red highlight below.) Me: First of all it is an error only in your own mind, not mine. He put a lot of pressure for Rick to get a moderator and was not Rick's first choice for good reason as we have seen. Your hyper focus on irrelevant details does not change Buck's constant lobbying for control and its immediate aftermath. As far as that being a swipe at Ann implying that she hates Barry's guts and in a position of control would have used it on him, take it as you like. I was just stating an obvious fact of what more probably would have gone down. If it makes you feel better I would have said that about you too in that position. Judy: It's interesting that--unless somebody comes out of the woodwork--Rick didn't ask any of Barry's Boys if they wanted to be moderator. Me: You don't know who has and who has not been asked anything by Rick except that he asked Ann and Buck. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :Just to clarify (as Curtis seems unable to comprehend a particular point here) Me: Bit of unnecessary condescension. I can comprehend points just fine, I just had not seen your post. A: Rick approached Buck to see if he was interested in the job as moderator after first offering it to me. Is this clear enough? Me: Thanks for posting this I wasn't going to chase around to find it. I guess Barry would be gone now either way then. About Buck's relentless lobbying for control of this site, that is in the posting record so your being asked doesn't prove the point Judy seems to think it does. But then this is all Judy distraction from what I consider the real issue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Yeah, pretty hard to manufacture a convincing counterargument, ain't it? Me: Keep digging Ms Doubledown...You are extending my joy. I'll be a lot more impressed if your joy facilitates your coming up with a convincing rebuttal. The *fact* is that what Doug wrote isn't explicit either way. Me: Says the person who professionally edits. Keep going... Judy: But what I outlined is the way I read it when it was first posted, and I see no reason to change that inference just because Curtis is desperate to contrive evidence that Doug should be fired as moderator so Curtis can rescue his pal and cheerleader Barry from durance vile. Me: Maybe I clarified the situation with Rick. Think that might be behind my confidence in what is going on here? Are you asking me to trust your word, Curtis? Really? Judy: BTW, Curtis, looks like the story you made up about Doug twisting Rick's arm to persuade him he needed Doug to moderate FFL has been busted. I'm sure you've seen Ann's post today. Me: I am unfamiliar with her writing here, we have different interests. Oh, that's a good one. You and she have had quite a number of long discussions about matters of common interest (some very friendly, others not so). I'm sure she'll be devastated to learn she's been erased from your memory. Convenient, though, in the present situation. We all saw Buck's relentless lobbying for this to happen here. There was no arm twisting it was just persistence and the invocation of a bogus problem to be solved, the Yahoo guidelines. Maybe you should just contact Rick before you make a bigger fool of yourself Judy. You are on the wrong side of this and we both know why. Check out Ann's post, poopsie. Just to clarify (as Curtis seems unable to comprehend a particular point here): Rick approached Buck to see if he was interested in the job as moderator after first offering it to me. Is this clear enough? ---In
[FairfieldLife] Doing full justice to something magnificant
I can't even comment on this right away. I just want it to sink in for the readers. Take it in, let it wallow in your mind. Take a moment, perhaps with a cup of tea, open the windows, hear the birds, breath in the the fresh air of Summer and enjoy something special, nay, something beautiful. In the way an Amazon naturalist might approach a spider in a web face high. Cautiously, with equal parts revulsion and fascination... Exchange from a previous post: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. This refers to I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well (If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status). Pull the moderation levers in the controls refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate (delete posts, bounce people, approve posts before they go up, etc.). Where's the lie, Curtis? Yer gettin' old, Curtis. Your technique is becoming calcified.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You're a little confused. See my third paragraph below. All three of 'em are doing it. (I'm not talking about *sexual* harassment, BTW, just continued annoying dumb attacks, typically gratuitous.) Me: There are no attacks and no one was being harassed. Those are inappropriately dramatic terms for me communicating with you here about a topic we disagreed with each other on. Is your memory going too? You called me dishonest (and then denied you had done so, apparently not realizing I'd quote you doing so). That was an empty, false accusation, and you knew it. Ergo, harassment. Me2: Yes it is true that I forgot I had made my suspicions explicit. With your latest stunt this view has been vindicated. (We will get to that post later, it must be savored on the palette like a very old port.) And it finally led you to at least say some of the right things about this mess which was my goal. I'd already said those things, Curtis. That you don't read (or don't remember) my posts doesn't make me dishonest. And the whole thing was accomplished with mostly cordial exchanges. None of that was cordial. You don't get to have a cordial exchange when you start off by falsely accusing somebody of being dishonest. Not without a retraction and apology. Me2: How about a reaffirmation that the charge was valid? You took one quote out of context and hyper-focused on it, demonstrating one of your biggest and most consistent cognitive errors. Then you threw in a little fallacious slippery slope argument to prove that it as in intentional deception. Cordial is relative to the poster. For you, that was cordial. Except for your inappropriate drama queenery, but that is part of the package and I accept that. And what characterizes your many posts to and about Doug? Drama kingery? Or is it only appropriate when you do it? Me2: Judy isn't often intentionally funny so let's give her a little credit her. My charges are specific and have not been labeled as more than they are. Judy in a previous post: As I've said, I object to Doug's attempt to moderate the David Lynch post. I object to his not revealing why he bounced Barry. Me: Thanks for making that clear, you have redeemed yourself a bit. I had already made that clear in other posts, as I told you. Judy: I can't object to his bouncing Barry without knowing why he did it. Me: Agreed, a reasonable reaction. Judy:If he did it because Barry openly defied him, I support it. I'm not into anarchy. Me: This is where we disagree. You are invoking the fallacy of he slippery slope and it does not fly. Barry objected to a person in charge who is capable of doing exactly what he did. And how could you believe he was going to actually ignore someone after he has told you that one thousand times while continuing to read and respond to some of your posts. Why you somehow believe he was serious here suddenly is a byproduct of your Barry bias. Oh, I see, that's the excuse now, Barry was JUST KIDDING. Ha ha ha. Jeez, how can you look at yourself in the mirror? I wasn't authorized to bounce him, or I'd have done it long since. So he couldn't have been just kidding when he said he'd never read or respond to my posts. Rather, he was LYING. Me2: Well if you take it as a lie then Buck's actions are unjustified just the same. I didn't say he was just kidding, he was blowing off steam at a moderator gone rogue and he realized he was getting unfairly set up for exactly what happened. The section below is my new favorite exchange with Judy of ALL TIME. Its perfection must be swirled in my mouth, first noticing the oaky notes in the back of my olfactory chamber,then each part of my tongue will be attended to in sequence from the back to the front and finally taken as a whole noticing the back notes and the after taste. Then it will be expectorated into the spittoon which is its rightful place. I owe you the reference on Buck's deception: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. This refers to I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well (If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status). Pull the moderation levers in the controls refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate (delete
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: WHAT THE HELL? (Great Beyond Dispatch #2)
You are really on to something. FFL #1 Barrry is bad and keeps me from having interesting discussions here. FFL #2 OK Barry is gone now, what do you want to say? FFL #1 That Barry is bad. FFL#2 Feel better now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: WHAT THE HELL? (Great Beyond Dispatch #2) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : So FFL is still the best bet to find a decent conversation, What, on the whole internet? I realize you don't get out much but this is rather far fetched. I am talking about spiritual groups related to TM I must say I'm impressed at your patience with this bullshit Xeno. But perhaps it's time to point out the irony in what's happening. Here we have a bunch of people with not much to say about anything claiming that mean old Bawee stopped them from posting because he was such a mean old meanie. And here they are pouring abuse on you in the same way they claim he used to get at them! I've said these people have no sense of awareness but isn't this taking it too far? I think that amoeba I posted about yesterday has a better grasp of what's going on than Ms Back for More. Lets make a challenge out of it. If it was the Big Bad Wolf stopping conversations here then why haven't they started again? How come it's looking more like a teenage girl's facebook page every day? If you were being prevented from posting, start posting. Start a thread, say something interesting, tell us something we didn't know, give us an insight into something - anything. But stop this dumb harassment of Xeno, you're just making yourself look stupid, he's got more to say than the rest of us put together. If you can't manage a whole thread you can share brain cells until you've thought of something. Better still, have a look back through the archives at some of Barry's pieces about creative writing. He posted some good essays on how to get started on the subject because, like me, he got fed up of the lack of participation and one line posts that add nothing that infest this place. But any appreciation of Barry's writing and contributions about archaeology, travel or history or even TV reviews would be a way of admitting that he made up a huge part of what was worth reading. Can't have that eh? Got to paint him bad and use him to blame your lack of meaningful participation on. When was the last time Judy started a thread? Hell, when was the first time Judy started a thread! Make an effort, stop the hypocritical bullshit or this place will drown in bland your pap. Xeno, until we removed the biggest impediment to a real conversation this place was being relentlessly moderated by that impediment. No one was exempt from his malicious and twisted lies and false allegations, not to mention bone-headed conclusions, except those who agreed with and stroked his ego. For you to assert that FFL, of all places, was the best place to find a decent conversation, is perverse if not simply bizarre. It is the ideas and what you can learn from them, or make out of them, not the people that propose them that I find interesting. What you do not like, skip over or delete (if you interact by email). Perhaps all of us have had an idol that did not live up to the image we pretended to ourselves that they were. In the movement, even shortly after one started to get involved with TM, there were strange warning signs something was amiss, and we would ignore it. The main problem is human beings are never ever really a match for the ideals they create. Still, we can sometimes extract value out of a much-less-than-what-we-would-consider-ideal situation. Funny, I wrote a post about this very thing to MJ. The big difference was I made it personal, I used I a lot whereas you tend to keep things in the abstract. Dry and brittle, a tad pedantic; I'm hoping you weren't a teacher or professor in your working days - the class would have been on snooze fer sure. Sorry, but it's true. No, I was not a teacher or a professor, so no one had to fall asleep on my account. I used to live next to a professor of engineering. He would come over and talk for hours in a monotone. Most of the time, in 'person' I don't talk that much. As for an 'I', you think you are a person. Too bad, what a loss. Ho, ho, hee, hee, snort. That is fucking hilarious!! And thank you for that. You have seriously missed the boat, lost the thread, stumbled off the platform. There is no loss Xeno, you evidently misunderstood something
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
There is something slippery going on here. Judy, who is the first to make a stink about the context of a quote when it serves her own purposes has clipped out this paragraph of Barry's from the thread context, dishonestly making it look like Barry said this in a vacuum. The context was Buck continuing to make a case that criticizing David Lynch was a violation of the Yahoo guidelines. This quote was contained in a plea to Rick to remove an obviously highly biased moderator who was gunning to kick Barry off. (Which then actually happened.) Here is the more complete thread giving Buck's absurd accusations and Barry's response. To me it looks like a rational response to lunacy. I will put Buck's first so his apologists can take a crack at explaining how this is a reasonable position to take concerning calling David Lynch an idiot. BUCK: Additionally, “Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups.” “..and don't invade other people's privacy.” The dragging of someone in to an unrelated thread as a means to slur them using FFL, a yahoo-group.. Whoa, for instance DLynch as a practitioner of TM worked with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi quite a lot on the teaching of TM quite evidently for good reasons and quite evidently Lynch knew well enough the scope of the 'what for and why' he was there. Quite evidently Turqb here is actively trying to slur and degrade DLynch personally by jumping in to this thread with an unqualified non sequitur posting publicly using [ 'exploitative' ] a Yahoo-group [FFL]. Now in a choice of moderation Turqb can go back in and delete this posting of his post haste and protect his membership status here or will this be left to the FFL moderators to go in and do it? The choice is Turq's. -JaiGuruYou Barry: This has really become too sad to get involved with. Rick, please do something to help Doug -- like removing him from his position as moderator. The responsibility and the genuine impossibility of the task have clearly caused him to become mentally ill. It was entertaining for a while when he was just embarrassing himself. But now he's embarrassing the whole forum. Moderator or not, Doug is now officially back on my Troll List. I will no longer bother to read anything he says or reply to anything he posts. Like our recently departed member, he no longer exists. By acting this crazy, he has effectively -- and ironically -- deleted himself. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Gratuitous invasions of privacy Additionally, “Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups.” “..and don't invade other people's privacy.” The dragging of someone in to an unrelated thread as a means to slur them using FFL, a yahoo-group.. Whoa, for instance DLynch as a practitioner of TM worked with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi quite a lot on the teaching of TM quite evidently for good reasons and quite evidently Lynch knew well enough the scope of the 'what for and why' he was there. Quite evidently Turqb here is actively trying to slur and degrade DLynch personally by jumping in to this thread with an unqualified non sequitur posting publicly using [ 'exploitative' ] a Yahoo-group [FFL]. Now in a choice of moderation Turqb can go back in and delete this posting of his post haste and protect his membership status here or will this be left to the FFL moderators to go in and do it? The choice is Turq's. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jamesalan735@... wrote : The responses below are some of the least rational, internally most contradictory responses that I have come across here. How the writer (apparently) considers these to constitute even a remotely coherent argument (and fails to see his responses as a complete surrender of moral principle to I choose to believe and do whatever suits my desired ends) is beyond me. But this from Turq is fine with you, eh, JamesAlan? Moderator or not, Doug is now officially back on my Troll List. I will no longer bother to read anything he says or reply to anything he posts. Like our recently departed member, he no longer exists. By acting this crazy, he has effectively -- and ironically -- deleted himself. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417032 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417032 Actually, I didn't find Steve's responses irrational, internally contradictory, incoherent, or a surrender of moral principle. But perhaps you'd be willing to go into some detail and cite examples of these purported flaws to enlighten the less intellectually capable among us. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : ---In
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : My first send hasn't shown up. Maybe Doug has decided to hold my posts for approval. Let's see if this second try makes it... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sure. Your accusation today that it was dishonest of me to post the last paragraph of Barry's post in which he declares he's going to ignore Doug completely. That was harassment, for the reasons I've already stated. C: I said it was slippery. You said it was dishonest: Judy, who is the first to make a stink about the context of a quote when it serves her own purposes has clipped out this paragraph of Barry's from the thread context, dishonestly making it look like Barry said this in a vacuum. Which it was. Me2: Well as long as we agree on its dishonesty, my point has been made. Don't be ridiculous. I explained to you why it was silly. You ignored that explanation and decided you wanted to talk about something else. So any opposition to your POV is harassment? Where did I say or suggest such a thing? Making up a dumb, frivolous accusation for the sole purpose of getting someone you don't like is harassment. Let me add this: Everybody was following the Doug-Barry confrontation with bated breath. Nobody thought he'd written that paragraph in a vacuum. And all they had to do was click on the link I provided if there was any question in their minds. Me2: OK now that we have done the Judy dance I will state my point again. By singling out that quote you give an impression that was not true about Barry. In the context of being threatened by a moderator over his comment about Lynch and having just waded through some convoluted and fey logic about how his statement violated the yahoo guidelines, and in the context of a plea to Rick to stop this nonsensical farce, his comment was highly restrained although he was obviously pissed off which is understandable IN CONTEXT. So you chose to isolate it from that context to impose yours on it. I guess you do have the moderator you deserve. Prattle. Me2: Excellent archaic word choice, I'm sure the equally old-timey Buck will approve. But my point does not fold under your obfuscation by over focusing on the details that don't matter. You Judy are being hypocritical about this issue because of your bias. You should be he first to object to this behavior by Buck. He banned Barry after making up a bogus charge. He refused to answer question about why even from Alex. He is acting against Rick's specific instructions and desires for his own group. He lied about Rick being involved in the decision. And here you are Judy, showing up as the perfect hypocrite, claiming I am harassing you by calling you on your BS. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I do not say this. But sometimes it's obvious what state of mind a poster is in. salyavin was just demanding that Ann quit what he called her dumb harassment of Xeno. How about you quit your dumb harassment of me and other TM supporters? Or is the idea to make up for Barry's absence by emulating his harassing behavior? You, salyavin, and Curtis seem to be working pretty hard at it, if not very coherently. Me: You are making a false accusation Judy. Or perhaps you would like to post a single example of me emulating harassing behavior?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jason_green2@... wrote : Curtis, have you spoken to Rick over the phone about this? You took a lot of effort to bring me back into the forum. You certainly can bring Barry back to the forum. Where is Dr. Pete when we need him? Me: Hey Jason, I don't have any power but I have emailed Rick to make sure he is aware specifically of how far Buck has gone beyond his explicit intentions. Buck was counting on Rick being too busy to keep up with his maneuver to get his personal enemy off the list. Rick is not too busy to let the site he created get hijacked for personal vendettas. I trust him to do the right thing once he talks with Buck. --- curtisdeltablues@... wrote : There is something slippery going on here. Judy, who is the first to make a stink about the context of a quote when it serves her own purposes has clipped out this paragraph of Barry's from the thread context, dishonestly making it look like Barry said this in a vacuum. The context was Buck continuing to make a case that criticizing David Lynch was a violation of the Yahoo guidelines. This quote was contained in a plea to Rick to remove an obviously highly biased moderator who was gunning to kick Barry off. (Which then actually happened.) Here is the more complete thread giving Buck's absurd accusations and Barry's response. To me it looks like a rational response to lunacy. I will put Buck's first so his apologists can take a crack at explaining how this is a reasonable position to take concerning calling David Lynch an idiot. BUCK: Additionally, “Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups.” “..and don't invade other people's privacy.” The dragging of someone in to an unrelated thread as a means to slur them using FFL, a yahoo-group.. Whoa, for instance DLynch as a practitioner of TM worked with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi quite a lot on the teaching of TM quite evidently for good reasons and quite evidently Lynch knew well enough the scope of the 'what for and why' he was there. Quite evidently Turqb here is actively trying to slur and degrade DLynch personally by jumping in to this thread with an unqualified non sequitur posting publicly using [ 'exploitative' ] a Yahoo-group [FFL]. Now in a choice of moderation Turqb can go back in and delete this posting of his post haste and protect his membership status here or will this be left to the FFL moderators to go in and do it? The choice is Turq's. -JaiGuruYou Barry: This has really become too sad to get involved with. Rick, please do something to help Doug -- like removing him from his position as moderator. The responsibility and the genuine impossibility of the task have clearly caused him to become mentally ill. It was entertaining for a while when he was just embarrassing himself. But now he's embarrassing the whole forum. Moderator or not, Doug is now officially back on my Troll List. I will no longer bother to read anything he says or reply to anything he posts. Like our recently departed member, he no longer exists. By acting this crazy, he has effectively -- and ironically -- deleted himself. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Gratuitous invasions of privacy Additionally, “Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups.” “..and don't invade other people's privacy.” The dragging of someone in to an unrelated thread as a means to slur them using FFL, a yahoo-group.. Whoa, for instance DLynch as a practitioner of TM worked with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi quite a lot on the teaching of TM quite evidently for good reasons and quite evidently Lynch knew well enough the scope of the 'what for and why' he was there. Quite evidently Turqb here is actively trying to slur and degrade DLynch personally by jumping in to this thread with an unqualified non sequitur posting publicly using [ 'exploitative' ] a Yahoo-group [FFL]. Now in a choice of moderation Turqb can go back in and delete this posting of his post haste and protect his membership status here or will this be left to the FFL moderators to go in and do it? The choice is Turq's. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jamesalan735@... wrote : The responses below are some of the least rational, internally most contradictory responses that I have come across here. How the writer (apparently) considers these to constitute even a remotely coherent argument (and fails to see his responses as a complete surrender of moral principle to I choose to believe and do whatever suits my desired ends) is beyond me. But this from Turq is fine with you, eh, JamesAlan? Moderator or not, Doug is now officially back on my Troll List. I will no longer bother to read anything
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Oh, blow it out your I/O port, Curtis. Me: Buck please deal with this violation of the kindness yahoo guideline. Judy: I note that you don't mention the context of *my* post, because it's embarrassing to one of your compatriots in trying to make up in nastiness for Barry's absence. And you didn't complain when I quoted Barry's post to you without the accompanying quote from Doug last week. Me: This point means nothing. I hadn't gone back and read the full thread again last week, I was dealing with your point at face value. But now I am dealing with it in context and it makes your point even more ridiculous. J: Obviously he'd taken exception to something Doug had said, and everybody knows Barry was hassling Doug about his David Lynch mistake. And both times I supplied the URL of Barry's post for folks who wanted to know the context. Me: Today I decided to talk about how absurd your focus on part of his reaction was. And all your fussing and fuming doesn't cover up your lack of ability to defend his indefensible attack on Barry's comment. I am not confused that you are dodging the main issue here. Buck never claimed this was the reason he banned Barry, he has not told us why. Your guess is all made-up nonsense to cover for a moderator acting in secret to ban one of your enemies. It only looks worse in context. J: The only part that was *relevant* to my response to JamesAlan was that last paragraph. JamesAlan had claimed (as you know; it's quoted below) of Steve's post that Steve was saying I choose to believe and do whatever suits my desired ends. Fine for Barry (and everybody else) to scream at Doug about the David Lynch post. Doug was wrong, and apparently he knows it, because he never deleted the post. But there's a HUGE difference between talking back to the moderator and declaring you are going to ignore him no matter what he says. I know you're having to scramble for ammunition against me, Curtis, but you're gonna have to do better than this. Me: You are on the wrong side of this and I know it Judy. But I need no ammo for you because I don't care about your partisan hypocrisy about this. It amuses me. What I do care about is having the site hijacked by a person who would attempt such a ridiculous accusation, transparently gunning for an individual poster, then ban him, then lie about whose decision it was, and then stonewall any questions about what the specific reason was that he got banned. I know for a fact that he is violating the explicit directions from the list owner. You have posted endlessly about your virtuous love of truth and honesty. When it is tested with someone you don't like, you fold. It was all for show. The get-Barry crew has shown their true ethical colors, and they stink. Alex was doing fine, there was no problem to solve that needed Buck. He invented this role as a ruse and immediately did what anyone can see who doesn't have Barry is bad blinders on. What makes your position doubly idiotic is that you could easily have been subject to this kind of mistreatment if the moderation fell into different partisan hands. And here is the kicker, I would have fought it just as hard for you as I am doing now, just as I spoke against banning the R trinity until two of them crossed clear ethical lines and I had to support it. I find this whole experience instructive concerning some people's ethics when self interest is in the way of doing the right thing. It disgusts me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : There is something slippery going on here. Judy, who is the first to make a stink about the context of a quote when it serves her own purposes has clipped out this paragraph of Barry's from the thread context, dishonestly making it look like Barry said this in a vacuum. The context was Buck continuing to make a case that criticizing David Lynch was a violation of the Yahoo guidelines. This quote was contained in a plea to Rick to remove an obviously highly biased moderator who was gunning to kick Barry off. (Which then actually happened.) Here is the more complete thread giving Buck's absurd accusations and Barry's response. To me it looks like a rational response to lunacy. I will put Buck's first so his apologists can take a crack at explaining how this is a reasonable position to take concerning calling David Lynch an idiot. BUCK: Additionally, “Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups.” “..and don't invade other people's privacy.” The dragging of someone in to an unrelated thread as a means to slur them using FFL, a yahoo-group.. Whoa, for instance DLynch as a practitioner of TM worked with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi quite a lot on the teaching of TM quite evidently for good reasons and quite evidently Lynch knew well enough the scope of the 'what for and why' he was there. Quite
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I do not say this. But sometimes it's obvious what state of mind a poster is in. salyavin was just demanding that Ann quit what he called her dumb harassment of Xeno. How about you quit your dumb harassment of me and other TM supporters? Or is the idea to make up for Barry's absence by emulating his harassing behavior? You, salyavin, and Curtis seem to be working pretty hard at it, if not very coherently. Me: You are making a false accusation Judy. Or perhaps you would like to post a single example of me emulating harassing behavior? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Ah. The master projector oracle speaks. I know, she says, exactly what everyone is really thinking and why. From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I would certainly have to agree with you, xeno. The question is how, or why do you respond to someone who, for a great majority of the time, is just going for a reaction. It is a total waste of time, for which I am guilty. I agree that Barry was likely never upset when he posted. I beg to differ with both of you. He was often incoherent with rage and completely out of control when he posted after someone had dissected one of his posts. You could count on it: he would very rarely respond directly to criticism, but a day or so later, he'd come out with one of his long posts attacking the critic on whatever grounds he could dream up. All his bluster about folks being attached to the self was projection; he was as attached as anybody and much more attached than some.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sure. Your accusation today that it was dishonest of me to post the last paragraph of Barry's post in which he declares he's going to ignore Doug completely. That was harassment, for the reasons I've already stated. C: I said it was slippery. Which it was. So any opposition to your POV is harassment? I guess you do have the moderator you deserve. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I do not say this. But sometimes it's obvious what state of mind a poster is in. salyavin was just demanding that Ann quit what he called her dumb harassment of Xeno. How about you quit your dumb harassment of me and other TM supporters? Or is the idea to make up for Barry's absence by emulating his harassing behavior? You, salyavin, and Curtis seem to be working pretty hard at it, if not very coherently. Me: You are making a false accusation Judy. Or perhaps you would like to post a single example of me emulating harassing behavior? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Ah. The master projector oracle speaks. I know, she says, exactly what everyone is really thinking and why. From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I would certainly have to agree with you, xeno. The question is how, or why do you respond to someone who, for a great majority of the time, is just going for a reaction. It is a total waste of time, for which I am guilty. I agree that Barry was likely never upset when he posted. I beg to differ with both of you. He was often incoherent with rage and completely out of control when he posted after someone had dissected one of his posts. You could count on it: he would very rarely respond directly to criticism, but a day or so later, he'd come out with one of his long posts attacking the critic on whatever grounds he could dream up. All his bluster about folks being attached to the self was projection; he was as attached as anybody and much more attached than some.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ahhhh, just a note .....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Although I'm posting more, because the two trolls are gone, I gotta mention that it seems almost everyone here is still dissin' on each other for various infractions. This includes my beloved sacred hero, Curtishee hee.not that he's wrong or illogical about Doug. Me: Your flattery has a sharp Edg to it... I was just getting Judy to see beyond her Barry blinders so she can be up to speed when the time for change here comes. Pretty cordial I would say. But yeah nothing has really changed except Barry can't respond. I can't understand people who spent most of their posts ON Barry when he was here would really want him off. If anyone ever tried to take Judy off I would kick and scream with the best of them. I communicate with her one thousand times more than with Barry. I think many posters here skipped the elements of dramatic narrative so they think they want a story with all protagonists and no antagonists! Geeze you guys. Take a look at the power of dumping the trolls. You HAVE TO ADMIT that FFL has been refreshed with new vigor and dare I say hope? Man-O-Man there's notions being flung around like spitballs nowmuch more openness. This is good even if the openness is on the part of bad-guys-here-in-your-opinion. Now, think of how much MORE we could get this kind of rebirth IF ALL OF US REVENGE-WILL-BE-MINE FUCKS WOULD SHUT UP ABOUT THE PAST..even the recent past. I could for instance promise never to mention the trolls again. See how simple that was? Your turn. Make a promise. Show some holy intent. (Curtis: holy means good intentions for everyone as much as practical or whatever) And more, I'll ask ya to turn the other cheek to any new smacks on your countenancejust to seeyou know.just to seewhy?because just to see -- if all of us with our inner trolls-not-entirely-unlike-in-kind-to-that-of-the-dearly-departed turned off that dynamic -- maybe just maybe we could jack the fuckin' shit outta this place with a neo-hippy, be-in, everyone gets to be crazy kinda party. Maybe. Cuz two down might only be a start, ya know?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : You're a little confused. See my third paragraph below. All three of 'em are doing it. (I'm not talking about *sexual* harassment, BTW, just continued annoying dumb attacks, typically gratuitous.) Me: There are no attacks and no one was being harassed. Those are inappropriately dramatic terms for me communicating with you here about a topic we disagreed with each other on. And it finally led you to at least say some of the right things about this mess which was my goal. And the whole thing was accomplished with mostly cordial exchanges. Except for your inappropriate drama queenery, but that is part of the package and I accept that. Judy in a previous post: As I've said, I object to Doug's attempt to moderate the David Lynch post. I object to his not revealing why he bounced Barry. Me: Thanks for making that clear, you have redeemed yourself a bit. Judy: I can't object to his bouncing Barry without knowing why he did it. Me: Agreed, a reasonable reaction. Judy:If he did it because Barry openly defied him, I support it. I'm not into anarchy. Me: This is where we disagree. You are invoking the fallacy of he slippery slope and it does not fly. Barry objected to a person in charge who is capable of doing exactly what he did. And how could you believe he was going to actually ignore someone after he has told you that one thousand times while continuing to read and respond to some of your posts. Why you somehow believe he was serious here suddenly is a byproduct of your Barry bias. I owe you the reference on Buck's deception: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls ME: And for context: Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi ... View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : I think she was accusing anartaxius of harassing her not you, or maybe I am confused From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : You are a bit over the top in your reaction I think J, I don't think he's harassing you, but that would be in the mind of the receiver of the comments wouldn't it? Anartax certainly can't be accused of harassing TM'ers. He is pretty balanced in most of his posts actually. No. I'm not harassing anyone, I'm just calling them out on their hypocrisy. You can't expect to launch a sneering pile-on and not get other people objecting if they like the work of the poster. Me harassing TMers would also be silly as I am one. I do like analysing the cult of TM though, maybe that's what she means, but I never lose sleep over that as the TM movement claims to be scientific and science actually proceeds by criticism. If an idea is a bad explanation it won't stand up to scrutiny and should be discarded. Easy to forget that. And it is what this place is for. A healthy mind challenges its own assumptions etc... From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug I do not say this. But sometimes it's obvious what state of mind a poster is in. salyavin was just demanding that Ann quit what he called her dumb harassment of Xeno. How about you quit your dumb harassment of me and other TM supporters? Or is the idea to make up for Barry's absence by emulating his harassing behavior? You, salyavin, and Curtis seem to be working pretty hard at it, if not very coherently. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Ah. The master projector oracle speaks. I know, she says, exactly what everyone is really thinking and why. From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I would certainly have to agree with you, xeno. The
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
Thanks for keeping the thread alive Michael. We have a fascinating power dynamic in play here that students of cult bullshittery like us can have some fun dissecting. Buck/Doug felt abused by the TM group when they yanked his badge for not following their rules about seeing other saints. This was before your posting period but his group spamming back then was all about the unfairness and lack of transparency in the TM group. Post after post on how badly he was treated. He finally wore them down and got back in the dome. From that moment he began the routine of glorifying the dome and castigating the quitters using every weird term for someone who does not go along with the group think. His lowest point was invoking the Maoist term running dog in his contempt for nonbelivers. As you are well aware he has used the images of drone strikes to silence critics like yourself. I don't know when the Buck persona arose. At first it seemed to be a parody of movement rigidity but then it became clear that Buck IS Doug and that the artifice was a dodge to be personally accountable for his actual intolerant views. With such a huge target of hypocrisy to shoot at, Barry posted a number of posts that Buck did not like. So became the gollum-esque campaign for Buck to have his precious the right to silence an outspoken critic and not be held accountable for it. He wore Rick down and got his one ring to rule them all. First he tried to make it appear as if there was a justification for removing his enemy by contriving a fey interpretation of the guidelines and pinning it on an idiotic example, criticism of Lynch. This was a classic new-to-power rookie mistake. In his eagerness to assert his personal agenda he miscalculated how transparent his agenda would be if he used an obviously bogus excuse. So backing off of that he switched to a lie, that Rick was the driving force and he was just a servant. Anyone can verify this was a deliberate lie with an email to the list owner. I did, and it turned out to be a fabrication. The abused is now the abuser. Because Barry made some enemies here, people are going along as if nothing happened. It is a classic case of people's values being exposed about what is right and wrong because of their personal self interest and petty vendettas. So here we all are back in the movement. Maharishi is too busy to micro-manage a course so a leader arises using lots of poetic bullshittery to make it seem as if they are speaking for their master. He was carrying a secret wound of when the leader had been abused by the movement's authoritarian policies, Then the leader carries out his personal revenge vendetta against people he does not like to get them kicked off the course. And the people who didn't like the person look the other way and say,let's move along and not be negative. And the people who have seen this all before and know where it leads stand up and speak out. Then one of two things happen. Maharishi visits the course and kicks out the power-grabbing guru wanna-be for abusing his power, or the other voices get quelled one by one. Time will tell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : And I notice that Dougy is still not responding to Curtis' request for an explanation to Turq's getting the boot - ignoring what needs to be addressed and blabbering about a bunch of other stuff is spot on TMO behavior. From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : This is not a place for someone who has a stated agenda to prove his point that an organization is a cult, and to label anyone who may defend the organization as cult apologist. According to the spiel on the Fairfield Life home page, this is the perfect place to discuss whether the TM Org is a cult. If what you say is true, then you feel this place has a stated agenda to prove the point that the TM Org is not a cult. This is a blatant statement showing you wish to suppress opposing points of view, as do many others here. Remember the first quotation on that page: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
[FairfieldLife] Re: The eyes have it!
I'll take a crack... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : If all the buzzings of a brain are 100% obedient to the laws of chemistry and physics, where's the free will? Old question. Still bothers me. If it's all determined, then it's moot to suss out individuality. We're all of a piece. If two atoms don't know each other, why would two separate nervous systems pinging back and forth with each other be said to be a stronger example of consciousness? More complex. Yes. But seemingly the same kind of phenomenon. And it's endlessthe Ved has this story of some Goddess who made HER SHADOW go do stuff for her. IT'S ALL ALIVE! This is why I cling so to Nisargadatta's concept that awareness is prior to consciousness. With that POV, everything is a direct emergence from the Absolute, and the only hint of real about any of ALL THIS is the witnesswhich is said to be merely half real. Here's something I posted twice already: Nisargadatta Maharaj: The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Soon he discovers that his own body he cannot be. Once the conviction: 'I am not the body' becomes so well grounded that he can no longer feel, think and act for and on behalf of the body, he will easily discover that he is the universal being, knowing, acting, that in him and through him the entire universe is real, conscious and active. Me: Believing that we are not the body is refuted by death itself. What he is describing sounds more like clinical dissociation than an exalted state worth pursuing. N:G: This is the heart of the problem. Either you are body-conscious and a slave of circumstances, or you are the universal consciousness itself -- and in full control of every event. Me: This is a grandiose claim isn't it? Who is in full control of every even and who is pompous enough to WANT to be? Many of life's delights are in being surprised by stuff we have not control over for good reason. NG:Yet consciousness, individual or universal, is not my true abode; I am not in it, it is not mine, there is no 'me' in it. I am beyond, though it is not easy to explain how one can be neither conscious, nor unconscious, but just beyond. I cannot say that I am in God or I am God; God is the universal light and love, the universal witness: I am beyond the universal even. Me: Does this odd language appeal to you really Edg? It sounds so full of himself in the oddest way. It is like getting into an infinity plus one contest with another kid. He has run out of superlatives to describe his own mental state. Aren't we all a little tired of this kind of bloviation? NG: Questioner: In that case you are without name and shape. What kind of being have you? M: I am what I am, neither with form nor formless, neither conscious nor unconscious. I am outside all these categories. Q: You are taking the neti-neti (not this, not this) approach. M: You cannot find me by mere denial. I am as well everything, as nothing. Nor both, nor either. These definitions apply to the Lord of the Universe, not to me. Q: Do you intend to convey that you are just nothing. M: Oh, no! I am complete and perfect. I am the beingness of being, the knowingness of knowing, the fullness of happiness. You cannot reduce me to emptiness! Me: I guess whatever turns you on is all I can say about this condescending word salad. I am mystified by people being impressed with this kind of hypnotic language that refers to nothing other than a person's inflated view of their own inner state. I guess the manta I would give a guy like this is getoveryourselfnamah. Wouldn't even charge him but I would make him bring me a side of North Carolina Ribs instead of the fruit flower and handkerchief. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Seems to me there's never not total consciousness. Heh. Two atoms know of each others existence -- this is seen when their motions change in strict correspondence to the others motions. They're in touch. No true independence of each other. I would be willing to call this interaction consciousness. I wouldn't be. In what way do they know anything? Surely to know something there has to be an inner sense that a presence has been detected and understood in some way even if it's just to ascertain whether it's a threat or not. This takes a lot of wiring, a lot of nerve and the accumulation of data that is passed on genetically - in the case of simpler life forms - or assessed individually as we can. We can do both two as we have two basic nervous systems,a spontaneous and a cogitative one. Two inanimate objects bumping into each other or neutron shells adjusting to each others presence isn't anything but blind action/reaction they don't have anyway of either registering the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Here's my take, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Ravi posted, and no one probably thought much about it. However, you reminded the denizens that Ravi had been banned, and so, it would follow, that if someone had been banned, and posted under another name, then that post would be deleted by the moderator. Me: Only he didn't delete the post that went after me, he chose to leave it. He went after the post that addressed himself. S: To do otherwise, would, I believe, open the moderator to accusations of favoritism and inconsistency. Me: Which is exactly how he used his power...again. Personally, if someone has been banned and wants to come back and post two or three years later, I'd say they should be given a chance. In fact, if someone has been banned, or their posting privileges revoked, I would say they should be allowed to come back and post after a six month period. That, in fact, is what I'd like to see happen in the case currently being debated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Actually, just this morning, Doug did his first exertion of editorial control by deleting Ravi's Barry - here's the gameplan thread. Granted, I can understand why he deleted it, but a deletion is a deletion. Thankfully, the offsite archive is under Rick's control, and the only way stuff gets deleted over there is if Rick emails the site's admin... like he's got the time and attention for that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : quite an exaggeration, I'd say. we know negativity, and we know what an edge is. everyone likes edge, no one lines trolling. it sounds Curtis, like you have a fervent wish for Doug to turn into the tyrant, he shows no sign of turning into. he banned Barry, because he obviously felt the site would be better off without an individual declaring, loudly, continually, that he was going to undermine him, the moderator, at every turn. since then, there has been no, as in zero, evidence of Doug exerting editorial control over the site. in fact, what we have, and what we haven't had in a long time is, ironically, the free expression of ideas, without someone with an overriding agenda putting the bum's rush on any idea he didn't like. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip And the people who didn't like the person look the other way and say,let's move along and not be negative. And the people who have seen this all before and know where it leads stand up and speak out. Then one of two things happen. Maharishi visits the course and kicks out the power-grabbing guru wanna-be for abusing his power, or the other voices get quelled one by one. Time will tell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : And I notice that Dougy is still not responding to Curtis' request for an explanation to Turq's getting the boot - ignoring what needs to be addressed and blabbering about a bunch of other stuff is spot on TMO behavior. From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : This is not a place for someone who has a stated agenda to prove his point that an organization is a cult, and to label anyone who may defend the organization as cult apologist. According to the spiel on the Fairfield Life home page, this is the perfect place to discuss whether the TM Org is a cult. If what you say is true, then you feel this place has a stated agenda to prove the point that the TM Org is not a cult. This is a blatant statement showing you wish to suppress opposing points of view, as do many others here. Remember the first quotation on that page: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : quite an exaggeration, I'd say. we know negativity, and we know what an edge is. everyone likes edge, no one lines trolling. it sounds Curtis, like you have a fervent wish for Doug to turn into the tyrant, he shows no sign of turning into. Me: It has already happened and because you also hated Barry you are twisting your ethics around to make it sound OK. S: he banned Barry, because he obviously felt the site would be better off without an individual declaring, loudly, continually, that he was going to undermine him, the moderator, at every turn. Me: This term undermine the moderator interests me. What specific actions could a non moderator take that would undermine a person with the power to banish? Could he state his different opinion perhaps? What Barry was doing was to voice his objections to Rick giving this kind of power to a person he predicted would abuse it and low and beholdthat is exactly what he did as soon as he could. Your story does not fit the facts or even what Buck himself has stated. He never gave this reason, you are repeating Judy's attempt to make this all sound reasonable. It is a made-up reason after the fact. I laid out the history of how it went down and you are ignoring the facts. S: since then, there has been no, as in zero, evidence of Doug exerting editorial control over the site. Me: Yeah I get it, it was just Holland. He would never go for Poland... S: in fact, what we have, and what we haven't had in a long time is, ironically, the free expression of ideas, without someone with an overriding agenda putting the bum's rush on any idea he didn't like. Me: Whenever I lurked in the last few months I would see you responding to Barry. You spent time doing this. It was your choice. What you wrote about someone putting a the bum's rush on ideas is a weird statement that hands the power of your own mind and intellectual boundaries over to someone else here. I have taken as much fire from as many people as anyone here Steve. I was able to choose whose criticism I would respond to. I am curious why you feel unable to make this choice yourself and why you would let anyone's other opinion on a topic give your ideas the bum's rush? When you and I disagree, we have a civil discussion like this one. If Barry didn't treat you that way then why did you respond to him so much? I think I know. Same reason I interact with people I don't agree with, because it is a great writing prompt for uncovering our own ideas in writing to people we disagree with. I didn't do this with the last R because he was not capable of discussion. But with the other two I did for the same reasons you did with Barry I'll bet. All three R's rode my jock for legions of posts. None of them deserved to get booted because they went after everything I wrote with their idiotic personal attacks. None of them gave any of my ideas the bums' rush. They mostly just proved my point with their behavior. Buck has violated the trust of this place by being dishonest and if you were being honest you would just admit that your personal position on Barry has distorted your sense of right and wrong on this issue. Moderators need to give reasons for booting people, not lie about it and blame it on other people. And if as a group we don't buy the reason, Rick should be informed that his moderator is not running the site as the free though forum it was intended to be. Barry didn't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip And the people who didn't like the person look the other way and say,let's move along and not be negative. And the people who have seen this all before and know where it leads stand up and speak out. Then one of two things happen. Maharishi visits the course and kicks out the power-grabbing guru wanna-be for abusing his power, or the other voices get quelled one by one. Time will tell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : And I notice that Dougy is still not responding to Curtis' request for an explanation to Turq's getting the boot - ignoring what needs to be addressed and blabbering about a bunch of other stuff is spot on TMO behavior. From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : This is not a place for someone who has a stated agenda to prove his point that an organization is a cult, and to label anyone who may defend the organization as cult apologist. According to the spiel on the Fairfield Life home page, this is the perfect place to discuss whether the TM Org is a cult. If what you say is true, then you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : quite an exaggeration, I'd say. we know negativity, and we know what an edge is. everyone likes edge, no one lines trolling. it sounds Curtis, like you have a fervent wish for Doug to turn into the tyrant, he shows no sign of turning into. Me: It has already happened and because you also hated Barry you are twisting your ethics around to make it sound OK. S: Oh, okay, so you are now the mind reader, knowing how I feel about someone. w Me: It is in your actual words that you write. If I had to mind read I would never have guessed you would go this way on this issue. S: he banned Barry, because he obviously felt the site would be better off without an individual declaring, loudly, continually, that he was going to undermine him, the moderator, at every turn. Me: This term undermine the moderator interests me. What specific actions could a non moderator take that would undermine a person with the power to banish? Could he state his different opinion perhaps? What Barry was doing was to voice his objections to Rick giving this kind of power to a person he predicted would abuse it and low and beholdthat is exactly what he did as soon as he could. S: This sounds an awful lot like twisting ethics to make something sound okay. Me: So you can't give an example of how anyone without moderator power could undermine? (R gave a pretty good one actually) There was nothing unethical about Barry's disapproval of Buck being a moderator. Your story does not fit the facts or even what Buck himself has stated. He never gave this reason, you are repeating Judy's attempt to make this all sound reasonable. It is a made-up reason after the fact. I laid out the history of how it went down and you are ignoring the facts. S: Yes, I am in agreement with Judy. If the David Lynch situation did not technically quality for suspension, I will state that the constant declaration that he would defy and oppose the new moderator at every turn was grounds to have his posting privileges suspended. I am sorry if you take issue with that decision. The end result, whether you agree, or not, is that it has changed the discourse of the site in what appears to be a more tolerant atmosphere, at least in my opinion. C: You mean the intolerance was toward someone you don't like. Talking back to a moderator is not a violation of Yahoo guidelines which is the only power Rick gave Buck. Being opposed to a guy with a history of intolerance is a rational reaction. And in the end it actually went down exactly that way. S: since then, there has been no, as in zero, evidence of Doug exerting editorial control over the site. Me: Yeah I get it, it was just Holland. He would never go for Poland... S: in fact, what we have, and what we haven't had in a long time is, ironically, the free expression of ideas, without someone with an overriding agenda putting the bum's rush on any idea he didn't like. Me: Whenever I lurked in the last few months I would see you responding to Barry. You spent time doing this. It was your choice. What you wrote about someone putting a the bum's rush on ideas is a weird statement that hands the power of your own mind and intellectual boundaries over to someone else here. I have taken as much fire from as many people as anyone here Steve. I was able to choose whose criticism I would respond to. I am curious why you feel unable to make this choice yourself and why you would let anyone's other opinion on a topic give your ideas the bum's rush? When you and I disagree, we have a civil discussion like this one. If Barry didn't treat you that way then why did you respond to him so much? I think I know. Same reason I interact with people I don't agree with, because it is a great writing prompt for uncovering our own ideas in writing to people we disagree with. I didn't do this with the last R because he was not capable of discussion. But with the other two I did for the same reasons you did with Barry I'll bet. I wish I had a few extra minutes to respond. But, I will say this. We all have things that bother us. I observed Barry twisting peoples words and intentions, or otherwise misrepresenting their opinions. Me: And you are free to make your case here because you were not banned by an enemy here. S: That bothers me. If I were a different type of person, I could ignore that, but I guess I am not, for better or worse. S: And again, when someone states that it is their intent to push other people's buttons, I find that to be a pretty poor grounds for discussion. And so, if as Xeno states, I am complicit in the crime, then, guilty as charged. Me: Barry stated the obvious about himself that some others try to hide but
[FairfieldLife] Re: The eyes have it!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Curtis, we've done this dance before, and my toes still hurt! Please believe me when I say I had to read Nisargadatta's I Am That three times before my intellect felt like he was logically consistent. Each page seems to say the same thing again and again, and yet, it turns out every page has some substantive purport that's unique. You're smart...might only need two readings! He had good schtick. Same with Ramana. I disregard most neo-Advaitists, though, as not-ready-for-Divine-time. Aaaand, word salad. Ahem, dude, you're wounding me like if I'd said, What worth could a gasoline can guitar have? I make my salads very carefully.always with an eye on usage and definitions while trying to be as poetically free as I can be. Me: I was using that phrase for his words not yours! The gas can guitar has no worth on it's own. It is only when hands bring it alive to serve its divine purpose as a blues machine that kills fascists. When the hands put it down, it becomes just a gas can that can't hold gas again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I'll take a crack... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : If all the buzzings of a brain are 100% obedient to the laws of chemistry and physics, where's the free will? Old question. Still bothers me. If it's all determined, then it's moot to suss out individuality. We're all of a piece. If two atoms don't know each other, why would two separate nervous systems pinging back and forth with each other be said to be a stronger example of consciousness? More complex. Yes. But seemingly the same kind of phenomenon. And it's endlessthe Ved has this story of some Goddess who made HER SHADOW go do stuff for her. IT'S ALL ALIVE! This is why I cling so to Nisargadatta's concept that awareness is prior to consciousness. With that POV, everything is a direct emergence from the Absolute, and the only hint of real about any of ALL THIS is the witnesswhich is said to be merely half real. Here's something I posted twice already: Nisargadatta Maharaj: The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Soon he discovers that his own body he cannot be. Once the conviction: 'I am not the body' becomes so well grounded that he can no longer feel, think and act for and on behalf of the body, he will easily discover that he is the universal being, knowing, acting, that in him and through him the entire universe is real, conscious and active. Me: Believing that we are not the body is refuted by death itself. What he is describing sounds more like clinical dissociation than an exalted state worth pursuing. N:G: This is the heart of the problem. Either you are body-conscious and a slave of circumstances, or you are the universal consciousness itself -- and in full control of every event. Me: This is a grandiose claim isn't it? Who is in full control of every even and who is pompous enough to WANT to be? Many of life's delights are in being surprised by stuff we have not control over for good reason. NG:Yet consciousness, individual or universal, is not my true abode; I am not in it, it is not mine, there is no 'me' in it. I am beyond, though it is not easy to explain how one can be neither conscious, nor unconscious, but just beyond. I cannot say that I am in God or I am God; God is the universal light and love, the universal witness: I am beyond the universal even. Me: Does this odd language appeal to you really Edg? It sounds so full of himself in the oddest way. It is like getting into an infinity plus one contest with another kid. He has run out of superlatives to describe his own mental state. Aren't we all a little tired of this kind of bloviation? NG: Questioner: In that case you are without name and shape. What kind of being have you? M: I am what I am, neither with form nor formless, neither conscious nor unconscious. I am outside all these categories. Q: You are taking the neti-neti (not this, not this) approach. M: You cannot find me by mere denial. I am as well everything, as nothing. Nor both, nor either. These definitions apply to the Lord of the Universe, not to me. Q: Do you intend to convey that you are just nothing. M: Oh, no! I am complete and perfect. I am the beingness of being, the knowingness of knowing, the fullness of happiness. You cannot reduce me to emptiness! Me: I guess whatever turns you on is all I can say about this condescending word salad. I am mystified by people being impressed with this kind of hypnotic language that refers to nothing other than a person's inflated view of their own inner state. I guess the manta I would give a guy like this is getoveryourselfnamah. Wouldn't even charge him but I would make him bring me a side of North Carolina Ribs instead of the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug
That was fascinating, thanks for the heads up Alex. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Actually, just this morning, Doug did his first exertion of editorial control by deleting Ravi's Barry - here's the gameplan thread. Granted, I can understand why he deleted it, but a deletion is a deletion. Thankfully, the offsite archive is under Rick's control, and the only way stuff gets deleted over there is if Rick emails the site's admin... like he's got the time and attention for that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : quite an exaggeration, I'd say. we know negativity, and we know what an edge is. everyone likes edge, no one lines trolling. it sounds Curtis, like you have a fervent wish for Doug to turn into the tyrant, he shows no sign of turning into. he banned Barry, because he obviously felt the site would be better off without an individual declaring, loudly, continually, that he was going to undermine him, the moderator, at every turn. since then, there has been no, as in zero, evidence of Doug exerting editorial control over the site. in fact, what we have, and what we haven't had in a long time is, ironically, the free expression of ideas, without someone with an overriding agenda putting the bum's rush on any idea he didn't like. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip And the people who didn't like the person look the other way and say,let's move along and not be negative. And the people who have seen this all before and know where it leads stand up and speak out. Then one of two things happen. Maharishi visits the course and kicks out the power-grabbing guru wanna-be for abusing his power, or the other voices get quelled one by one. Time will tell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : And I notice that Dougy is still not responding to Curtis' request for an explanation to Turq's getting the boot - ignoring what needs to be addressed and blabbering about a bunch of other stuff is spot on TMO behavior. From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : This is not a place for someone who has a stated agenda to prove his point that an organization is a cult, and to label anyone who may defend the organization as cult apologist. According to the spiel on the Fairfield Life home page, this is the perfect place to discuss whether the TM Org is a cult. If what you say is true, then you feel this place has a stated agenda to prove the point that the TM Org is not a cult. This is a blatant statement showing you wish to suppress opposing points of view, as do many others here. Remember the first quotation on that page: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
[FairfieldLife] Re: The eyes have it!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I ask ya, cuz, when I first got up off the floor, I was pretty fixated on anti-spirituality -- more than I could really justify. Truth be told, you seem to be in a similar fix -- just can't cut spirituality a break, and with a massive intellect to back your play, it's going to take some time for you to changeif any change is needed...for which I can't make a strong case. Me: I've gone through my experience a bunch of times here so I will sum it up. I first doubted the group dynamic from running into Steve Hassan's book, Combating Cult Mind Control. Then I discovered that hypnotic techniques could invoke everything I was so proud of experiencing through TM. I realized I had just assumed that older interpretation of these experience's meaning was better. Then I started to examine secular POV's on spiritual experiences. Then I discovered that I could have an ethical compass without God or supernatural forces. That was the end of it being a negation of beliefs and I started to rebuild my way of assessing reality. It took a lot of years to find all the hidden assumptions I had bought into. I don't accept that I am fixed on anti-spirituality. I read what you posted and reacted honestly. I believe that until someone shows me something I can't do I don't need to be concerned with self proclaimed higher states. It may rub me the wrong way sometimes when someone comes off as condescending. And claiming to be in a higher state subjectively is pretty much a setup for that isn't it? I read your quote pretty much as any standard entry level philosopher would: what are the claims, what is the proof? What is the word choice, is it intended to inform or to make me feel floaty like poetry. If I read a paragraph and have nothing to put in a wheel barrow afterwards I sense I am being bullshitted. (I thank John Grinder founder of NLP for that observation.) When I first got out of TM I had an agenda to inform about what the movement was hiding about it's beliefs. So I got calls from news agencies looking for a contrasting opinion for a while. Now with the Internet I don't feel such a need. People can find out what is up and it is up to them to choose. And since I loved TM and it's world view till the day I didn't, I don't look down on people who still roll that way. I understand the appeal. But I still thank my lucky stars that I escaped that world view because I believe it is way to limited to contain where I want to go with my mind. Spirituality and how people come to believe these ideas still fascinate me today. That is why I like I post on a forum with mostly spiritually minded people. I can only find my own edges of understanding by interacting with people who think differently. So I don't believe disagreement is an anti position. I am pro truth, wherever that leads. Heh, I don't read very well.thought for sure word salad was about me. Geeze.looking at my shoe tops and scuffing the dirt here. Just as an intimacy, Bro, when/how did you become so soured about all things divinity? My moment came at 9:30 A.M. Western Time Zone September 11, 2001, and had almost nothing to do with the 911 attacks, but the synchronous was fucking off the charts! I tossed the entire movement out when life served me up a plate of that whoopass. My 29 years in the chair didn't protect me -- all it took was an ordinary life glitch to collapse all my beliefs about improving personality to a fetal position. My ego thought I was saving up a ton of chits owed to it by God you see. As if. I ask ya, cuz, when I first got up off the floor, I was pretty fixated on anti-spirituality -- more than I could really justify. Truth be told, you seem to be in a similar fix -- just can't cut spirituality a break, and with a massive intellect to back your play, it's going to take some time for you to changeif any change is needed...for which I can't make a strong case. Meanwhile, hey, you gotta admit the roaches are running around the FFL kitchen in full daylight now -- kinda breezy and neatso refreshing. I'm talking to everyone without even checking their name first...can't keep them all straight very well anyway.so easy to forget who pissed me off last week. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Curtis, we've done this dance before, and my toes still hurt! Please believe me when I say I had to read Nisargadatta's I Am That three times before my intellect felt like he was logically consistent. Each page seems to say the same thing again and again, and yet, it turns out every page has some substantive purport that's unique. You're smart...might only need two readings! He had good schtick. Same with Ramana. I disregard most neo-Advaitists, though, as
[FairfieldLife] Time to come clean Doug
OK I've done my homework Doug. You have not been dealing straight with us and it is time for you to man up and explain why YOU decided on your own to ban Barry and what the reason was. Seriously dude, you have been naughty and you owe us an explanation. I get it that many people who post here didn't like Barry and they are happy he is gone so they may not all as a group stand up together and call you out for being dishonest and devious with us. They might think that the end justified the means. This is shortsighted thinking when it comes to abuse of power. I don't appreciate being lied to here and I am calling you out for abusing your powers in exactly the way Rick explicitly warned you against. You are throwing his trust back in his face by your actions as well as disrespecting everyone who builds discussions here. Stop dodging the legitimate questions you have been asked even by Alex. On what specific basis have you banished Barry? What rule did he violate? Let's put out those flaming pants with a a little truth now that you have been busted.
Re: And talk about Turq's personality too Re: [FairfieldLife] Time to come clean Doug
I thought it was pretty hilarious but thanks for letting me know how it happened. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : As Ravi demonstrates, another aspect of the whole banning people thing is that by having originally configured the group for anonymous posting, there's really not much Rick and the mods can do if a banned person insists on posting here. Ravi just posted as rc_racy, but when he was finished posting, he changed the nickname to something else, and there's no way to identify him in the subscriber list. And, once a group is configured for anonymous posting, it can't be changed back. To even attempt to boot Ravi, a mod would literally have to sit and watch the email traffic arrive in real time and immediately search the subscriber list for Ravi's current posting nickname as soon as one of his posts came in. Every time Ravi posts, I just laugh at the absurdity of the whole situation. --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Curtis - you really need to stop this malice and deception please. I don't have the time or energy or the inclination to post here and re-hash old issues from 4 years back. The fact of the matter is Ravi didn't cause you any personal harm nor did I cause this international conspiracy of flooding the search engines, how hilarious and preposterous. You got a taste of your own medicine and a taste of what your pal dishes out to everyone else - gratuitous, egregious barrage of insults. Please move on Curtis - stop your poor me routine. Same goes for the likes of Xeno and empty bill, stop these personal attacks on me. Otherwise I agree with you. Doug's not the moderator I would have, he has been a TM cult enabler, an unoriginal, uninteresting poster who spammed the list repeatedly over the years. But that doesn't disqualify him from being a moderator but I would be concerned if his moderatorship results in stopping the freedom of expression FFL is renowned for. You are right in questioning his motivations in banning Barry, he just needs to state clearly why he has banned Barry that's all. As a former poster I'm glad to see Barry go, Edg's impassioned posts demonstrate why Barry has been such a toxic influence here and you Curtis have been one of his greatest enablers here, and you should be ashamed for that. Ravi ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Edg, I was not in Barry's crosshairs and you were. I never viewed you through his eyes. You and I became friends on our own as we sized each other up as good people. So I am not judging you for your opinion of him nor him for his opinion of you. That is between you two guys and is none of my business. I always deal one on one and make up my own mind on people here. If I was Barry's target I would probably feel as you do. But I would just tune him out like I did others who went after me or find a way to interact that suited my writing interests. And I might write as you have dancing on his grave a bit. I get the appeal and I always enjoy reading you whatever the topic. But the bigger issue for me isn't Barry, it is an environment I have valued for a place to exercise free thought. It has been hijacked by someone who not only does not value free expression, he has acted against it. I know you felt the chill when he went after that Lynch comment as an actionable offense. If we want to understand what freedom of speech is all about, defend it for someone whose views we disagree with. I used to argue against banning Ravi for raving here until he crossed over a clear line of personal harm. I thought he deserved to be able to post because I didn't want anyone making that kind of content judgement calls on anyone here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I would be willing to give Turq an offer to post ONCE more.cuz it'd be great to see how hard he'd cram everything into it. Hilarious, right? I tried hard as hell to like Turq, because: Curtis. I'd do numbers on my head about Turq's a good writer, posts some newsy stuff, gives some headsup on films like that like that, because Curtis is smarter than any two of us here and he was okay with Turq, so I had to re-think this issue many times, but every single time I posted something -- even if it was neutral-ish and not turq-ish related and not even true-believer-ish -- BAM this dick would go out of his way to somehow find something with which to, once again as he did for so many here, deride me, the person, instead of trying to uplift with countering and educating debate points. Turq was a hunting sniper here -- shooting to crush anyone's spirit and ruin their fucking day with a major self-esteem wound. Psychic fucking vampire slavering to lick up any spilled blood. Sick. Sociopath almost certainly. Willfully anti-sanity. Living inside a bullet
Re: And talk about Turq's personality too Re: [FairfieldLife] Time to come clean Doug
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Curtis - you really need to stop this malice and deception please. I don't have the time or energy or the inclination to post here and re-hash old issues from 4 years back. The fact of the matter is Ravi didn't cause you any personal harm nor did I cause this international conspiracy of flooding the search engines, how hilarious and preposterous. Me: Yeah he actually did. It was a proven fact. And the intention behind it was to harm me. It was stopped by Rick. Who happens to be a search engine expert by profession, so he understood exactly what was happening. I was a search engine optimizer for a tech company years ago. But anyone with familiarity with them could recognize what was happening. I was able to check it so I could determine the rate that my name was being associated with vile lies by its rank in the search engines. The bluff and bluster of words like preposterous doesn't substitute for facts. ?: You got a taste of your own medicine and a taste of what your pal dishes out to everyone else - gratuitous, egregious barrage of insults. Me: This is untrue as anyone who ever read me here knows. I have suffered a barrage of insults from quite a few people here but I would never question their right to express that here. It is not medicine to flood search engines. It is a cyber aggression for actual harm. ?: Please move on Curtis - stop your poor me routine. Me: There was no poor me. I took action so it was stopped. I was the opposite of a poor me. ?:Same goes for the likes of Xeno and empty bill, stop these personal attacks on me. Me: Are you outing yourself? ?: Otherwise I agree with you. Doug's not the moderator I would have, he has been a TM cult enabler, an unoriginal, uninteresting poster who spammed the list repeatedly over the years. But that doesn't disqualify him from being a moderator but I would be concerned if his moderatorship results in stopping the freedom of expression FFL is renowned for. You are right in questioning his motivations in banning Barry, he just needs to state clearly why he has banned Barry that's all. Me: Glad we agree on that. Well said. ?: As a former poster I'm glad to see Barry go, Edg's impassioned posts demonstrate why Barry has been such a toxic influence here and you Curtis have been one of his greatest enablers here, and you should be ashamed for that. Me: Requesting that someone feel shame is such a weird thing to communicate. Trying to link me to Barry as someone who could be in a position to enable shows a lack of understanding of the word. It means: to give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something. How would it be possible for me to do either of those things with Barry by posting on the same board he does? Rick enabled us all and that was the end of anyone's ability to enable anyone here. We rarely even cross posts we mostly have different interests here. Sorry for disappoint you about your request for me to be ashamed of my participation here. To make matters worse, I am really proud of the what I have written here. It has helped me immensely in online communication. And much of that learning took place in a highly charged emotional atmosphere where someone was riding my jock hard about being too much of one thing, or not enough of something else. It was often very unpleasant. But it is a kind of training that I value. I don't seem to need too much of it these days, but when I need a dose, this place delivers. Thanks for writing and I will accept the feedback not to invoke names from the past that way. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Edg, I was not in Barry's crosshairs and you were. I never viewed you through his eyes. You and I became friends on our own as we sized each other up as good people. So I am not judging you for your opinion of him nor him for his opinion of you. That is between you two guys and is none of my business. I always deal one on one and make up my own mind on people here. If I was Barry's target I would probably feel as you do. But I would just tune him out like I did others who went after me or find a way to interact that suited my writing interests. And I might write as you have dancing on his grave a bit. I get the appeal and I always enjoy reading you whatever the topic. But the bigger issue for me isn't Barry, it is an environment I have valued for a place to exercise free thought. It has been hijacked by someone who not only does not value free expression, he has acted against it. I know you felt the chill when he went after that Lynch comment as an actionable offense. If we want to understand what freedom of speech is all about, defend it for someone whose views we disagree with. I used to argue against banning Ravi for raving here until he crossed over a clear line of personal harm. I thought he
Re: And talk about Turq's personality too Re: [FairfieldLife] Time to come clean Doug
Edg, I was not in Barry's crosshairs and you were. I never viewed you through his eyes. You and I became friends on our own as we sized each other up as good people. So I am not judging you for your opinion of him nor him for his opinion of you. That is between you two guys and is none of my business. I always deal one on one and make up my own mind on people here. If I was Barry's target I would probably feel as you do. But I would just tune him out like I did others who went after me or find a way to interact that suited my writing interests. And I might write as you have dancing on his grave a bit. I get the appeal and I always enjoy reading you whatever the topic. But the bigger issue for me isn't Barry, it is an environment I have valued for a place to exercise free thought. It has been hijacked by someone who not only does not value free expression, he has acted against it. I know you felt the chill when he went after that Lynch comment as an actionable offense. If we want to understand what freedom of speech is all about, defend it for someone whose views we disagree with. I used to argue against banning Ravi for raving here until he crossed over a clear line of personal harm. I thought he deserved to be able to post because I didn't want anyone making that kind of content judgement calls on anyone here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I would be willing to give Turq an offer to post ONCE more.cuz it'd be great to see how hard he'd cram everything into it. Hilarious, right? I tried hard as hell to like Turq, because: Curtis. I'd do numbers on my head about Turq's a good writer, posts some newsy stuff, gives some headsup on films like that like that, because Curtis is smarter than any two of us here and he was okay with Turq, so I had to re-think this issue many times, but every single time I posted something -- even if it was neutral-ish and not turq-ish related and not even true-believer-ish -- BAM this dick would go out of his way to somehow find something with which to, once again as he did for so many here, deride me, the person, instead of trying to uplift with countering and educating debate points. Turq was a hunting sniper here -- shooting to crush anyone's spirit and ruin their fucking day with a major self-esteem wound. Psychic fucking vampire slavering to lick up any spilled blood. Sick. Sociopath almost certainly. Willfully anti-sanity. Living inside a bullet proof bubble. Not blinkered, blind. I tried. He shot poisoned arrows. I am not the most lovable person, hee fucking hee, but Turq attacked almost everyone in this manner, so I'm felling pretty okay about being targeted for no reason. Yeah, I post some crap here and should be wrist slapped maybe sorta but shit, gimme a break. Not that Turq couldn't have had great insights in the psychological and spiritual dissonances some of us experience regularly, but that he NEVER wanted to help anyone towards clarity -- he was only here to rape your mind in public and then walk away like he'd slain a dragon for all our benefits. Talk about your terror-minded, teeny brained, tawdry life intents! I know you're reading, Turq. Ha ha ha ha ha...payback's a bitchand get this: just like you NEVER gave anyone a break, I'm smackin' the fuckin' shit outta ya when YOU'RE DOWN, because IT'S PERFECT KARMA. And, it takes a thorn to remove a thorn -- thank you Rick for giving us Doug! Yes, I said it! Ha ha! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : I second the motion! And for the record I like Barry and Duveyoung too, who doesn't like Barry. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 5:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Time to come clean Doug OK I've done my homework Doug. You have not been dealing straight with us and it is time for you to man up and explain why YOU decided on your own to ban Barry and what the reason was. Seriously dude, you have been naughty and you owe us an explanation. I get it that many people who post here didn't like Barry and they are happy he is gone so they may not all as a group stand up together and call you out for being dishonest and devious with us. They might think that the end justified the means. This is shortsighted thinking when it comes to abuse of power. I don't appreciate being lied to here and I am calling you out for abusing your powers in exactly the way Rick explicitly warned you against. You are throwing his trust back in his face by your actions as well as disrespecting everyone who builds discussions here. Stop dodging the legitimate questions you have been asked even by Alex. On what specific basis have you banished Barry? What rule did he violate? Let's put out those flaming pants with a a little truth now that you have been
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. Me: Exactly Alex. No one can follow the lines if they are not painted clearly. When people hide the criteria they are using to judge people it creates... another TM movement. So far, this experiment with Doug as moderator is starting to remind me of when Rick put an Amma fanatic in charge of moderating the Amma free speech group, with the end result being the loss of free speech and the creation of the Amma Real Free Speech group. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Turq's posting is exactly the reason so many social sites have shut down their comment sections. Excessive and abusive trolling. I see little downside to having his participation here terminated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I sincerely hope that TurquoiseB is never allowed to post here again. He is toxic for the entire group and should have been removed a long time ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Gonna ask again, Doug: did you ban Turq for good or will you be restoring his posting privileges at some point? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I looked at the activity log, and Turq is still subscribed; all Doug did was kill his ability to post. Whereas, Rick booted *and* banned the one who shall not be mentioned (I think the banned list prevents a person from even sending a subscription request.) The only people I've given the boot are spammers, and I don't regard them as worthy of any kind of explanation. But, in the case of people who are actual participants, I think full disclosure is in order. In Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it has not been disclosed if this is just a temporary time-out or permanent. The fact that Doug didn't actually unsubscribe him suggests the possibility that it isn't permanent. What sayest thou, Doug? Is Turq gone for good? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated. In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing to do now is to initiate a dead pool list of who is going to be next in the the current purge. 1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug 2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the pompous powers that be in the movement. 3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.) Game on! Who will be next? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I have zero idea what's going on, but I'll at least let him say goodbye. - Forwarded Message - From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... To: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:46 AM Subject: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me? It appears that Doug has gone ahead with his threats and has deleted my access to Fairfield Life. I'm just wondering how he justifies doing this based on supposedly offending posts of mine made back in May when on June 9th in post #416493 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416493?soc_src=mailsoc_trk=ma he explicitly said: In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution” and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your cooperative collaboration on this. -JaiGuruYou! Seems to me there is more than a little hypocrisy, double-dealing, and outright dishonesty going on here, and since Doug has eliminated the possibility of me bringing this question up to the group myself, I figured I'd ask you to do it for me. Thanks for everything. You have been more than fair in all of your dealings with Fairfield Life and with the odd group of characters who have posted there over the years. I wish that sense of fairness and honesty was equally present in the newest moderator. Barry...ooops, do I get in trouble for using my own real name? :-) P.S. To everyone else, so long and thanks for all the fish...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Declaring one is going to ignore the authority figure, of course, adds up to far more than simply talking back to the authority figure. And it has nothing to do with the Yahoo Guidelines per se; it has to do with the authority figures themselves. If they want to maintain their authority, they need to sanction those who openly defy it. But you're well aware of this. Me: In a Southern town in the 1950's or in Saddam's Iraq maybe. Your statement is absurd on some levels and offensive on others. In fact rather than point out its many flaws I will simply repeat what you said and ask the reader to let images come into their mind where this would be appropriate: Judy: If they want to maintain their authority, they need to sanction those who openly defy it. Me: In what time and place would such a repugnant idea be promoted? Although Maharishi subscribed to this authoritarian ideology, as an American who grew up in the 60's I do not. I am opposed to this view of authority figures and offer my own. They work for US, not the other way around. If you are a shitty leader you get opposition from people who actually do know better, and if you are a good one you get opposition from people who just think they do. The moderator's job here is not to crush dissent in FFL members when they point out that he is not serving the forum's needs properly. I do believe that you may have outed some of Buck/Doug's impression of what his role is here. But since he is not telling us why Barry was cut off specifically we can only speculate. Judy: Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your dead pool implication. Me: The old Judy playbook technique of stating the opposite of what I said about my intentions in my own writing, as if this makes it so. I comes from the belief that she knows better than I do myself what my meaning was in what I wrote myself about myself. It is a byproduct of grandiosity. Judy: Unfortunately you've screwed up again. I came out of lurkerdom on May 31, a week before Rick decided to appoint a moderator, a week before any of us knew he was even considering it. Me: You have been peeking in and out of lurkdom a few times lately with your most recent posting streak the most prolific. Each time you come out of lurkdom is a different time because you are the one making a point to tell us that you may not return to post again. Judy: Doug is not now and never has been either my friend or my enemy. But what's fascinating about your absurd remark is that you can't seem to envision defending someone who isn't a friend who is being treated unfairly and dishonestly just because it's the right thing to do. There has to be an ulterior, self-interested motive as far as you're concerned. Me: Right Judy. I am a poopy pants and you are a virtuous person among the dishonest unwashed. I would have hoped that your sabbatical would have helped you get over yourself a bit but I am afraid it has not. Your misinterpretation of my meaning and your projection on it is at the basis of your weird charge. Rather than untangle the mess you made of what I said I will just end here with Louis Armstrong: You blows what you is. That explains it all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Curtis deliberately misrepresents what I said in an effort to switch the context his way. Again, standard. My conclusion about why Turq got bounced was that he declared he was going to ignore anything Doug posted. Kind of like a football player announcing publicly that he was going to ignore anything the umpire said. How much longer do you think he'd stay in the game--or on the team, for that matter--after that? Just a *wee* bit different from talking back to the umpire. And Turq wasn't even addressing Doug when he said what he did. Me: It all adds up to talking back to the authority figure and this is not an actionable offense in the Yahoo guidelines. You are making Judy distinctions between things that do not matter. Judy: The implication of your dead pool remark was, of course, that I was sucking up to Doug to ensure I wouldn't get bounced, rather than just doing the right thing by defending him from the unfair and dishonest treatment he's been getting. Me: You are making up your implication so you can enjoy your favorite emotional outrage buzz Judy. That was neither intended nor implied in what I wrote. I hadn't even conspired that as an angle when I wrote that. I was stating the obvious and as usual you got bent about it. Your choice. I don't believe that you act in that calculated a way here, so from my POV I would not accuse you of this directly or in implication. But seeing how reactive you got makes me think that perhaps a bit of the ol' enemy of my enemy is my friend at work here that brought you out of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
Interspersed comments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Why not give it a go, Curtis. Me: I am giving it my version of a go by commenting on issues I find relevant here. This new change is interesting, so I am writing about it. That is my go. If you mean why don't I change my opinion of what has happened here, I would need some better reasons than the ones I have for feeling the way I have been expressing. S: Instead of worrying about what could be, why not give it a go and see what happens? Me: My comment have almost exclusively been about what I object to in what HAS happened. S: There are two, two people that are not here as a result of the actions of the group owner and the new moderator Me: You can't combine these two because they are completely different cases. R did not get bounced because he was a troll which he also was. He got bounced for attempting to hurt me in the real world by using information about me against me. Then he went over to the Peak and was allowed to do the same thing. His intention was harm, there was no other reasonable reason to search out posts in the long past where my name appeared and post them repeatedly against my will and after getting banned for this before. This bizarre-O situation has nothing to do with Barry's situation. We know what got one bounced and not the other. . S: Everything else has been pure speculation on the part of those who object to one person having his posting privileges revoked. Me: I never said I objected to Barry having his privileges revoked because the reason has not been revealed to me. I object to that. If the reason was because Barry called David Lynch an idiot for giving the Guru of the Beatles a million dollars for a course MMY did not attend, than I would object to that reason. So far that is all I know he got flagged for. S: You would think, by the reaction, that a muzzle has been put on the participants here. Me: I think the reaction from some posters is appropriate given who is the moderator here. S: Where is the evidence? Me: In his posts where he described what violated Yahoo guidelines about a tame post about David Lynch being an idiot. In the lack of posts that let us know how a person got booted and which interpretation of the guidelines was used to determine his fate. I get it that you think this gun will never be aimed at you, and you are glad Barry is gone. We may use this place for different reasons which compels us to view all this differently. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks for all your concern for the community here. The yahoo-guidelines are really quite simple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well within the wide margins of tolerance that are the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Me: S, we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads, is that it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. Me: Exactly Alex. No one can follow the lines if they are not painted clearly. When people hide the criteria they are using to judge people it creates... another TM movement. So far, this experiment with Doug as moderator is starting to remind me of when Rick put an Amma fanatic in charge of moderating the Amma free speech group, with the end result being the loss of free speech and the creation of the Amma Real Free Speech group. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Turq's posting is exactly the reason so many social sites have shut down their comment sections. Excessive and abusive trolling. I see little downside to having his participation here terminated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I sincerely hope that TurquoiseB is never allowed to post here again. He is toxic for the entire group and should have been removed a long time ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Gonna ask again, Doug: did you ban Turq for good or will you be restoring his posting privileges at some point? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I looked at the activity log, and Turq is still subscribed; all Doug did was kill his ability to post. Whereas, Rick booted *and* banned the one who shall not be mentioned (I think the banned list prevents a person from even sending a subscription request.) The only people I've given the boot are spammers, and I don't regard them as worthy of any kind of explanation. But, in the case of people who are actual participants, I think full disclosure is in order. In Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
Crystal clear, thanks for posting this. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : This is still a complete lack of transparency (except for the case of 'R'). This explains nothing about precisely why Turq was dropped. It's not about coloured cards. It is about certain specific posts that occurred after you took this moderator job, because you specified 'going forward' — not what happened previous to that. So exactly what led you to pull the trigger. My vote is to unseat the CEO. But I have only one vote, and it depends on how democratic Rick feels, as you are not democratic in regards to spiritual philosophy. You do not look at it in an abstract philosophical way, you look at it in a much more rigid religious way. In 2009 you wrote to Turq Om no, no, Turq; That what thee don't know may not hurt thee or else explains a lot otherwise. Spiritually aware people seem to know... You are talking to him like a Quaker here (except for the 'Om'). I would say you have a predisposition against free-thinking philosophical enquiry, something that is absolutely necessary to engage with finding out what enlightenment is or is not. You also repeatedly posted items substituting 'the unified field' for the word 'God'. I am suggesting that you have a built-in bias that underlies, out of sight, your desire to use the Yahoo guidelines to eliminate those who do not share your ideas of community and spirituality. Writing here as a conservative meditator I should like to share this meditation hymn with our straying meditator friend [Turq] and once benighted soul here. Is a beautiful meditation hymn with a strong lesson for even fallen away meditators. To come home. Oh there is tremendous mercy in the unified field, its compassion mercifully is in the physics of it. Ex-patriots, come home to meditation. Make your choice and grace you'll find there is in the natural law of the Unified Field. You also said the above. That pretty much nails your attitude against rigorous questioning of spiritual concepts to discover if they have any real value. You want a conservative retreat from this with everything settled in a certain predetermined way. Some spiritual concepts do have value, but one cannot know this without discovering value oneself, at some point you have to toss the guidebooks and take the matter in hand. And what works for one person may not work for another. I feel you want people to slide back into a nice cult-like mentality, and this is exactly what we are attempting to rid ourselves of. You are using the guidelines as a smokescreen for your real intentions, and as such I feel you are unsuited for the job. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls. From Soccer.. A red card will be shown to a player who has committed a serious offence such as violent conduct or an illegal and purposeful obstruction of a goal scoring opportunity for the opposing team. A red card will also be shown to a player who accumulates two yellow cards for more minor offenses. These guys who have presently been ejected from FFL were well beyond accumulating two yellow cards. It was quite time for their ejections from FFL to secure our alignment as a yahoo-group with the yahoo-guidelines. -JaiGuruYou!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : On one Yahoo page Guidelines for Comments on Yahoo, the following appeared at the end of their so-called guidelines: 'Yahoo is not responsible or liable in any way for comments posted by its users' That rather undoes any responsibility on Yahoo's part regarding the content of the guidelines and enforcement. Me: There never was a Yahoo guidelines problem that is being solved by B/D. It was a contrivance to exert power over content here by someone whose desire to do so has been relentlessly expressed here through the years. There are those of us who would like to unseat the current CEO of moderation so we could have more interesting conversations about how TM fails to produce rational human beings who can take anything that is thrown at them (we are talking about words here, not bullets, that's another story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks for all your concern for the community here. The yahoo-guidelines are really quite simple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well within the wide margins of tolerance that are the Yahoo-groups guidelines. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. Me: Exactly Alex. No one can follow the lines if they are not painted clearly. When people hide the criteria they are using to judge people it creates... another TM movement. So far, this experiment with Doug as moderator is starting to remind me of when Rick put an Amma fanatic in charge of moderating the Amma free speech group, with the end result being the loss of free speech and the creation of the Amma Real Free Speech group. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Turq's posting is exactly the reason so many social sites have shut down their comment sections. Excessive and abusive trolling. I see little downside to having his participation here terminated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I sincerely hope that TurquoiseB is never allowed to post here again. He is toxic for the entire group and should have been removed a long time ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Gonna ask again, Doug: did you ban Turq for good or will you be restoring his posting privileges at some point? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I looked at the activity log, and Turq is still subscribed; all Doug did was kill his ability to post. Whereas, Rick booted *and* banned the one who shall not be mentioned (I think the banned list prevents a person from even sending a subscription request.) The only people I've given the boot are spammers, and I don't regard them as worthy of any kind of explanation. But, in the case of people who are actual participants, I think full disclosure is in order. In Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it has not been disclosed if this is just a temporary time-out or permanent. The fact that Doug didn't actually unsubscribe him suggests the possibility that it isn't permanent. What sayest thou, Doug? Is Turq gone for good? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated. In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing to do now is to initiate a dead pool list of who is going to be next in the the current purge. 1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug 2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the pompous powers that be in the movement. 3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.) Game on! Who will be next? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I have zero idea what's going on, but I'll at least let him say goodbye. - Forwarded Message - From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... To: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:46 AM Subject: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me? It appears that Doug has gone ahead with his threats and has deleted my access to Fairfield Life. I'm just wondering how he justifies doing this based on supposedly offending posts of mine made back in May when on June 9th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks for all your concern for the community here. The yahoo-guidelines are really quite simple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well within the wide margins of tolerance that are the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Me: S, we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads, is that it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. Me: Exactly Alex. No one can follow the lines if they are not painted clearly. When people hide the criteria they are using to judge people it creates... another TM movement. So far, this experiment with Doug as moderator is starting to remind me of when Rick put an Amma fanatic in charge of moderating the Amma free speech group, with the end result being the loss of free speech and the creation of the Amma Real Free Speech group. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Turq's posting is exactly the reason so many social sites have shut down their comment sections. Excessive and abusive trolling. I see little downside to having his participation here terminated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I sincerely hope that TurquoiseB is never allowed to post here again. He is toxic for the entire group and should have been removed a long time ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Gonna ask again, Doug: did you ban Turq for good or will you be restoring his posting privileges at some point? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I looked at the activity log, and Turq is still subscribed; all Doug did was kill his ability to post. Whereas, Rick booted *and* banned the one who shall not be mentioned (I think the banned list prevents a person from even sending a subscription request.) The only people I've given the boot are spammers, and I don't regard them as worthy of any kind of explanation. But, in the case of people who are actual participants, I think full disclosure is in order. In Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it has not been disclosed if this is just a temporary time-out or permanent. The fact that Doug didn't actually unsubscribe him suggests the possibility that it isn't permanent. What sayest thou, Doug? Is Turq gone for good? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated. In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing to do now is to initiate a dead pool list of who is going to be next in the the current purge. 1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug 2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the pompous powers that be in the movement. 3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.) Game on! Who will be next? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I have zero idea what's going on, but I'll at least let him say goodbye. - Forwarded Message - From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... To: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:46 AM Subject: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me? It appears that Doug has gone ahead with his threats and has deleted my access to Fairfield Life. I'm just wondering how he justifies doing this based on supposedly offending posts of mine made back in May when on June 9th in post #416493 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416493?soc_src=mailsoc_trk=ma he explicitly said: In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution” and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your cooperative collaboration on this. -JaiGuruYou! Seems to me there is more than a little hypocrisy, double-dealing, and outright dishonesty going on here, and since Doug has eliminated the possibility of me bringing this question up to the group myself, I figured I'd ask you to do it for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Nice to hear from folks again and see folks returning and some joining FFL again. Feels like watching the migration flyways where waterfowl in traveling drop in out of the sky to rest and feed along the way. Me:Other than a brief drop-in by a Peak poster and Judy, the increase in activity here mostly centers on concerns by regular posting members about your behavior as moderator. Those are not geese, they are your own chickens coming home to roost. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls. From Soccer.. A red card will be shown to a player who has committed a serious offence such as violent conduct or an illegal and purposeful obstruction of a goal scoring opportunity for the opposing team. A red card will also be shown to a player who accumulates two yellow cards for more minor offenses. These guys who have presently been ejected from FFL were well beyond accumulating two yellow cards. It was quite time for their ejections from FFL to secure our alignment as a yahoo-group with the yahoo-guidelines. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks for all your concern for the community here. The yahoo-guidelines are really quite simple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well within the wide margins of tolerance that are the Yahoo-groups guidelines. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. Me: Exactly Alex. No one can follow the lines if they are not painted clearly. When people hide the criteria they are using to judge people it creates... another TM movement. So far, this experiment with Doug as moderator is starting to remind me of when Rick put an Amma fanatic in charge of moderating the Amma free speech group, with the end result being the loss of free speech and the creation of the Amma Real Free Speech group. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Turq's posting is exactly the reason so many social sites have shut down their comment sections. Excessive and abusive trolling. I see little downside to having his participation here terminated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I sincerely hope that TurquoiseB is never allowed to post here again. He is toxic for the entire group and should have been removed a long time ago. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Gonna ask again, Doug: did you ban Turq for good or will you be restoring his posting privileges at some point? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I looked at the activity log, and Turq is still subscribed; all Doug did was kill his ability to post. Whereas, Rick booted *and* banned the one who shall not be mentioned (I think the banned list prevents a person from even sending a subscription request.) The only people I've given the boot are spammers, and I don't regard them as worthy of any kind of explanation. But, in the case of people who are actual participants, I think full disclosure is in order. In Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it has not been disclosed if this is just a temporary time-out or permanent. The fact that Doug didn't actually unsubscribe him suggests the possibility that it isn't permanent. What sayest thou, Doug? Is Turq gone for good? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated. In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing to do now is to initiate a dead pool list of who is going to be next in the the current purge. 1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug 2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the pompous powers that be in the movement. 3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.) Game on! Who will be next? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
I agree with the need to know. If we are expected to follow your interpretation of the vague yahoo guidelines, it is only fair for us to find out what POV we need to align ourselves to until all dissenting voices are inevitably quelled here. So far it is a perfect reflection of the movement style. One of the longest posters here has suddenly been removed and we have no idea why. This is in contrast to what happened when R was removed for a very specific infraction of the rules that help us be safe posting here. We know why and if you don't do what he did, you wont get what he got. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Buck, what were your reasons for removing Turq from the group? I know there have been many complaints about him from spiritual cretins as to why they wanted him removed, but you have been silent about it, even though you seemed vocal about it in a general way prior to being appointed moderator. I am interested in the mind of our moderator. As you performed the action of blocking him, what were you feeling? He had, after all, been on your case for years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
Feste, I forgot to thank you for saying something very nice about my participation here. Back at you and thanks. We will see if I can stay this side of the undefined invisible line that has drawn as I try to find out where exactly it is. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I would say that opposing views are welcome here. There is room for disagreement and argument but not an atmosphere in which insult and abuse becomes the norm. I find it astonishing that an effort to realign this group so that it conforms to the Yahoo! guidelines should be greeted by one recent poster as some kind of return to medieval tyranny. No, it's just a call for people to adopt a more civil tone with one another. The recently departed Turquoise was, in my opinion, the principal cause of the descent of FFL into the gutter, and now I hope it will become a more interesting and welcoming place, with more people from Fairfield posting. The group is, after all, called Fairfield Life. I hope you will go on posting, Curtis, because you are one of the most interesting and articulate people here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : FFL reflected Rick's open mindedness and respect for adults voicing their opinion in dramatic contrast to the group that most of us were involved with. I consider this latest change to be a version of FFL suicide by appointing Buck/Doug to kill off all opposing views. Once freedom of expression is gone it will die off as a useful place to post. But your post makes you exempt from the FFL Dead Pool list, so there is that! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : For years, FFL was like an unweeded garden. Noxious weeds were allowed to grow unchecked, poisoning the entire garden. Then a new gardener was appointed who decided to clean things up. Of course, the noxious weeds do not like it. As far as TurquoiseB's expulsion is concerned, he can have little cause for complaint, in my opinion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated. In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing to do now is to initiate a dead pool list of who is going to be next in the the current purge. 1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug 2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the pompous powers that be in the movement. 3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.) Game on! Who will be next? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I have zero idea what's going on, but I'll at least let him say goodbye. - Forwarded Message - From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... To: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:46 AM Subject: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me? It appears that Doug has gone ahead with his threats and has deleted my access to Fairfield Life. I'm just wondering how he justifies doing this based on supposedly offending posts of mine made back in May when on June 9th in post #416493 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416493?soc_src=mailsoc_trk=ma he explicitly said: In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution” and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your cooperative collaboration on this. -JaiGuruYou! Seems to me there is more than a little hypocrisy, double-dealing, and outright dishonesty going on here, and since Doug has eliminated the possibility of me bringing this question up to the group myself, I figured I'd ask you to do it for me. Thanks for everything. You have been more than fair in all of your dealings with Fairfield Life and with the odd group of characters who have posted there over the years. I wish that sense of fairness and honesty was equally present in the newest moderator. Barry...ooops, do I get in trouble for using my own real name? :-) P.S. To everyone else, so long and thanks for all the fish...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : What on earth is the difficulty understanding the obvious here? Turq got thrown out because he declared he was not subject to Doug's moderation. There's no need to have Doug explain it to us when we have the evidence of the post in which he explicitly announced he was going to completely ignore anything Doug said. (He had also repeatedly insulted Doug, among other things by calling him insane.) Me: Which Yahoo rule does verbally defying the absolute authority of the moderator fall under? And BTW, Xeno, there were some very smart people--some smarter than you, in fact--who wanted Turq removed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I agree with the need to know. If we are expected to follow your interpretation of the vague yahoo guidelines, it is only fair for us to find out what POV we need to align ourselves to until all dissenting voices are inevitably quelled here. So far it is a perfect reflection of the movement style. One of the longest posters here has suddenly been removed and we have no idea why. This is in contrast to what happened when R was removed for a very specific infraction of the rules that help us be safe posting here. We know why and if you don't do what he did, you wont get what he got. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Buck, what were your reasons for removing Turq from the group? I know there have been many complaints about him from spiritual cretins as to why they wanted him removed, but you have been silent about it, even though you seemed vocal about it in a general way prior to being appointed moderator. I am interested in the mind of our moderator. As you performed the action of blocking him, what were you feeling? He had, after all, been on your case for years.
[FairfieldLife] A message to Jim at the Peak
I am not a member so I cannot post this there but I know he reads FFL sometimes. Richard is now posting every instance of when I used my real name in the past on your site. The issue is that recent postings of my real name, personal or professional get picked up by search engines as more relevant. He is posting things from the beginning of my time on FFL and even Alt TM as a malisicous act toward me on your site. I get it that I can do nothing about this. But I want you to understand what you are supporting by letting him do this. I make a living in the highly judgmental eye of school systems. I try to keep my personal and professional lives separate as best as I can. Facebook is now ruined as a place to speak freely since so many professional contacts friended me. Now it is a bland PR site. When I speak my mind here I want to do it freely. That is why I try to keep my identities as separate as I can on search engines. Wouldn't a decent person just follow my request? I have good reasons. The point is not that all of us have an online footprint that can be researched if someone diggs. And many of us were a bit naive in the beginning days of posting. It is that the search engines for casual searches that get skewed by reposting old posts with names. Of course most people would get outed with enough research these days. But by putting it in the recent relevant category in search engines it changes the ranking. What kind of person does this to someone online? Now lets go to intent. Knowing that this could potentially do me professional harm. what type of person continues this behavior after I asked him to stop and then continues the online assault another forum online? Is this what your site supports? Seriously.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
My comments below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : This post is almost entirely irrelevant to the current situation on FFL. Moreover, it has quite a few inaccuracies. There is no reason that anyone's equanimity should be deliberately tested by trying to upset them. It may happen naturally in the course of a discussion or argument, but otherwise it's just an excuse to indulge one's aggression and treat them badly. Me: I agree with this Judy. It seems like a valid criticism of a lot of posters here. Judy: Turq's posts were frequently poorly reasoned. He was a flashy writer, and this tended to be deceptive: one assumed he was saying something insightful because one was dazzled by the language. But if you looked more closely, you found that he was so focused on showing off his language skills that he didn't pay much attention to working out his ideas properly. Also, he often got his facts wrong, inadvertently or otherwise. I'm not sure anybody cares which R's you would or would not have removed. Doug has not yet demonstrated a tyrannical side. As Alex confirmed, he has not deleted any posts. He has deleted two posters, both for more than sufficient reason. He has not moderated any contrary views except for one slip with Turq's nasty post about David Lynch (which has not been deleted). Every new moderator, as far as I'm concerned, gets to make a couple of mistakes at first. That's how they learn what it's about. ME: I had to change to plain text to respond interspersed. Judy had the above paragraph overlined. Buck/Doug only deleted Barry, he did not ban R, that was Rick. Buck/Doug was busy scolding Edg for using words that would be inappropriate in a middle school classroom but would turn no heads at a cocktail party nor have ever invoked the wrath of Yahoo Groups as a violation of their cover-our-asses policy. I point this out because his focus of attention is revealed in these choices. He then tried to take partial credit for banning someone who deserved it but Alex busted him on that. What you are terming a mistake is much more a revelation of values. A more cynical person than I might say that it was a ludicrous charge that was deliberately made to invoke an actionable response. To even WANT to censor a person's opinion about David Lynch is much more than a simple mistake. It is a clear abuse of power in a way that is consistent with his values that we have all known about posting with him all these years. I also object to the your characterization of his post about David being nasty. That hyperbolic description mischaracterizes (IMO, I get that) a pretty banal observation that a guy who gives a million dollars to a celebrity guru for an enlightenment course and the guru does not even show up is a . Fill in the blanks there are a lot words for such people. Every media outlet in America would have taken this story slant. Judy: Doug has been under withering fire from Turq for *years*. It's no wonder he has personal enmity; he wouldn't be human if he didn't. He's stood up under it remarkably well. But Turq handed him a justification to expel him on a silver platter when he declared himself not subject to Doug's authority as moderator. What was he *thinking*?? How could there have been any question in his mind as to why he'd been denied access to the forum? Me: First of all I have to compliment you for NOT doing a dance on Barry's grave here. It speaks well of you given your history with him. But as far as Barry giving Doug withering fire, that was in response to Buck/Doug constantly scolding many of us with a posture of condescension that provokes return fire. I heard for years that I was a quitter and need to come back to the holy path he was on and that problems in the world were my fault for not going to the dome...and endless TM-y blather we all know too well. He got the reaction he deserved for the whole routine of pretending he was parodying a view that was actually his own as we have found out since he came out from behind his persona mask. Judy: Doug's religious persona is hardly medieval. Nineteenth century, maybe. I vote for giving him a chance and a bit of benefit of the doubt, maybe even helping him out rather than continually nastily criticizing him. Me: This view would be the wise one if he had not already outed his agenda here. Criticisms of abuse of power are not subject to minimization by labeling them nasty. What is nasty is one person imposing his tiny movement POV on a bunch of adults on what used to be a useful free thought site. Judy: Did anyone argue that personal attacks always involved profanity? Did anyone argue that personal attacks were always gratuitous? Did anyone argue that likes and dislikes have something to do with the truth? As for your quotes, at this point they're straw men. Nobody's freedom of speech has been taken away, nobody has
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : (snip) But your support for him has eliminated you from the FFL dead pool so in the end your choice my be the wise one here if you still care to post. I resent the implication. Standard Curtis. As it happens, I don't intend to stay around much longer. Me: Nothing was implied Judy, it was all stated clearly. Even by your own analysis that opposing Doug/Buck may lead to being banned. It was your conclusion about why he bounced Barry for talking back to him. Being offended by the most obvious comment was your MO here so this is standard Judy. Judy: The only reason I've stayed as long as I have is to try to keep you guys more honest than you would be otherwise. Me: Always nice to end with a note of condescension and self aggrandizement so we know it is really you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Curtis deliberately misrepresents what I said in an effort to switch the context his way. Again, standard. My conclusion about why Turq got bounced was that he declared he was going to ignore anything Doug posted. Kind of like a football player announcing publicly that he was going to ignore anything the umpire said. How much longer do you think he'd stay in the game--or on the team, for that matter--after that? Just a *wee* bit different from talking back to the umpire. And Turq wasn't even addressing Doug when he said what he did. Me: It all adds up to talking back to the authority figure and this is not an actionable offense in the Yahoo guidelines. You are making Judy distinctions between things that do not matter. Judy: The implication of your dead pool remark was, of course, that I was sucking up to Doug to ensure I wouldn't get bounced, rather than just doing the right thing by defending him from the unfair and dishonest treatment he's been getting. Me: You are making up your implication so you can enjoy your favorite emotional outrage buzz Judy. That was neither intended nor implied in what I wrote. I hadn't even conspired that as an angle when I wrote that. I was stating the obvious and as usual you got bent about it. Your choice. I don't believe that you act in that calculated a way here, so from my POV I would not accuse you of this directly or in implication. But seeing how reactive you got makes me think that perhaps a bit of the ol' enemy of my enemy is my friend at work here that brought you out of lurkdom, which has been replayed so many times in your years of posing here I hope you make a comical attempt to deny it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : (snip) But your support for him has eliminated you from the FFL dead pool so in the end your choice my be the wise one here if you still care to post. I resent the implication. Standard Curtis. As it happens, I don't intend to stay around much longer. Me: Nothing was implied Judy, it was all stated clearly. Even by your own analysis that opposing Doug/Buck may lead to being banned. It was your conclusion about why he bounced Barry for talking back to him. Being offended by the most obvious comment was your MO here so this is standard Judy. Judy: The only reason I've stayed as long as I have is to try to keep you guys more honest than you would be otherwise. Me: Always nice to end with a note of condescension and self aggrandizement so we know it is really you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated. In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing to do now is to initiate a dead pool list of who is going to be next in the the current purge. 1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug 2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the pompous powers that be in the movement. 3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.) Game on! Who will be next? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I have zero idea what's going on, but I'll at least let him say goodbye. - Forwarded Message - From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... To: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:46 AM Subject: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me? It appears that Doug has gone ahead with his threats and has deleted my access to Fairfield Life. I'm just wondering how he justifies doing this based on supposedly offending posts of mine made back in May when on June 9th in post #416493 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416493?soc_src=mailsoc_trk=ma he explicitly said: In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution” and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your cooperative collaboration on this. -JaiGuruYou! Seems to me there is more than a little hypocrisy, double-dealing, and outright dishonesty going on here, and since Doug has eliminated the possibility of me bringing this question up to the group myself, I figured I'd ask you to do it for me. Thanks for everything. You have been more than fair in all of your dealings with Fairfield Life and with the odd group of characters who have posted there over the years. I wish that sense of fairness and honesty was equally present in the newest moderator. Barry...ooops, do I get in trouble for using my own real name? :-) P.S. To everyone else, so long and thanks for all the fish...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dark Medieval Consciousness
Just added to my Dead Pool list for oppositional opinion: 4. Xeno ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear a dark, medieval consciousness is beginning to take over Fairfield Life, in the likeness of the Transcendental Meditation Organisation's tyrannical manner. Medieval 1. of or relating to the Middle Ages. 2. Informal, very old-fashioned or primitive. Synonyms: antique archaic feudal Gothic primitive antediluvian antiquated old old-fashioned unenlightened antiquated out of date outdated outmoded anachronistic passé obsolete horse-and-buggy Tyranny 3. cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. Synonyms: authoritarianism autocracy coercion cruelty despotism domination oligarchy oppression terrorism totalitarianism absolutism fascism high-handedness imperiousness monocracy severity totality peremptoriness reign of terror unreasonableness
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
FFL reflected Rick's open mindedness and respect for adults voicing their opinion in dramatic contrast to the group that most of us were involved with. I consider this latest change to be a version of FFL suicide by appointing Buck/Doug to kill off all opposing views. Once freedom of expression is gone it will die off as a useful place to post. But your post makes you exempt from the FFL Dead Pool list, so there is that! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : For years, FFL was like an unweeded garden. Noxious weeds were allowed to grow unchecked, poisoning the entire garden. Then a new gardener was appointed who decided to clean things up. Of course, the noxious weeds do not like it. As far as TurquoiseB's expulsion is concerned, he can have little cause for complaint, in my opinion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated. In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing to do now is to initiate a dead pool list of who is going to be next in the the current purge. 1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug 2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the pompous powers that be in the movement. 3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.) Game on! Who will be next? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : I have zero idea what's going on, but I'll at least let him say goodbye. - Forwarded Message - From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... To: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:46 AM Subject: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me? It appears that Doug has gone ahead with his threats and has deleted my access to Fairfield Life. I'm just wondering how he justifies doing this based on supposedly offending posts of mine made back in May when on June 9th in post #416493 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416493?soc_src=mailsoc_trk=ma he explicitly said: In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution” and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your cooperative collaboration on this. -JaiGuruYou! Seems to me there is more than a little hypocrisy, double-dealing, and outright dishonesty going on here, and since Doug has eliminated the possibility of me bringing this question up to the group myself, I figured I'd ask you to do it for me. Thanks for everything. You have been more than fair in all of your dealings with Fairfield Life and with the odd group of characters who have posted there over the years. I wish that sense of fairness and honesty was equally present in the newest moderator. Barry...ooops, do I get in trouble for using my own real name? :-) P.S. To everyone else, so long and thanks for all the fish...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness and The Unified Field
I found this to be a revealing post about how Doug and I differ concerning information and contrasting POV's here on FFL ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Dear 4U, I appreciate your taking the time to post this here. There are a number of contributors here who often cut off discussion of this but it is nice to have this point of view available to listen to. Me: Only moderators have the ability to cut off discussion here. What you are mislabeling as cutting off is when writers like myself point out that using physics terms as poetry outside their legitimate context is a transparent attempt to misappropriates the rigor of physics to a field of speculation. You and I seem to go through a very different process when we see information that is contrary to the one we hold. I love articles like this one. It is a great writing prompt to see where my own intellectual edges lie. I welcome them and if I had the godlike powers you sought out and now possess, I would never want to interfere with anyone posting what I consider to be a cockamamie view of physics and consciousness. When you see a person's opposing view you react as if they had cut off your conversation. I guess that is a lot easier than just making your case. I asked Larry Domash if Maharishi meant to equate the vacuum state with consciousness or just use it as a metaphor? He giggled nervously and revealed that this area was one of disagreement for him. What was the first thing Hagelin did when he took over the I am a physicist AND play one on TV for my master routine? He equated the Unified Field with consciousness following his masters lead on lack of intellectual integrity. Doug: I liked the video of Hagelin for the perspective it gives to the larger conversation. That was helpful for insight in to what has become the usual abbreviated put-down here when the subject of consciousness and physics generally comes up. Thanks, -JaiGuruYou Me: I have written much about this topic and it is far from an abbreviated put-down. Equating consciousness which is the product of a macro process with the mathematical formula dependent technical physics concept of a unified field at a completely different level of nature is intellectually dishonest (tip of the hat to Judy) from an actual physicist like Hegelin. He knows it is bogus but it that was the price for his movement position, his intellectual integrity. When movement types spout physics poetry as if they understand this level of physics I just have chalk it up to them never having the intellectual horsepower to actually go deep enough into a field to understand that there such a thing as expertise in a field like physics and we non physicists don't have it. Your post sounds suspiciously like something Buck would say. I wonder... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mikemail4you@... wrote : Consciousness and The Unified Field http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/consciousness-and-the-unified-field-and-why-this-information-is-important.html http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/consciousness-and-the-unified-field-and-why-this-information-is-important.html Consciousness and The Unified Field http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/consciousness-and-the-unified-field-and-why-this-information-is-important.html Consciousness – The Unified Field What follows is a theoretical explanation of how energies interact in our universe to create what we… View on themindunleashed.org http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/consciousness-and-the-unified-field-and-why-this-information-is-important.html Preview by Yahoo http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/consciousness-and-the-unified-field-and-why-this-information-is-important.html http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/consciousness-and-the-unified-field-and-why-this-information-is-important.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Gratuitous invasions of privacy
I object to this overreach of moderator power into content censorship by a blatant misread of the explicit intention of this guidline. The guideline applies to members of the list, and David lynch is not a member, he is a public figure. He is not being degraded because he will never read this and that is not the intention of the guidleline anyway. You are attempting to censor content to your own subjective standard inappropriately by misreading the guideline to apply to a personal opinion about a public figure. Mentioning that it is a non sequitur to the post is also a misread of the intentions of the guidelines which does not address this at all since adding new points is the nature of a public forum. Calling it exploitative is also a misread of the meaning of the word. Barry is exploiting nothing by posting his opinion about a public figure and his actual actions. Please read what Barry wrote and weigh in if the community believes this is an outrageous comment that needs the intervention of moderators: What Barry actually wrote: This is amazing. You read through this and you think, How could anyone possibly BE so gullible as to fall for this? But then you think about people like David Lynch, who was so gullible he paid Maharishi a million dollars so that he could attend an Enlightenment Course, and then Maharishi didn't even have the courtesy to show up in person to teach it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Additionally, “Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups.” “..and don't invade other people's privacy.” The dragging of someone in to an unrelated thread as a means to slur them using FFL, a yahoo-group.. Whoa, for instance DLynch as a practitioner of TM worked with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi quite a lot on the teaching of TM quite evidently for good reasons and quite evidently Lynch knew well enough the scope of the 'what for and why' he was there. Quite evidently Turqb here is actively trying to slur and degrade DLynch personally by jumping in to this thread with an unqualified non sequitur posting publicly using [ 'exploitative' ] a Yahoo-group [FFL]. Now in a choice of moderation Turqb can go back in and delete this posting of his post haste and protect his membership status here or will this be left to the FFL moderators to go in and do it? The choice is Turq's. -JaiGuruYou reference: FFL# 416332 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : “ ..and don't invade other people's privacy.” In going forward in accord with Rick's original intent for protecting privacy on FFL know that in responding [replying] to posts made on FFL an unsolicited use of someone's legal name on FFL is an invasion of privacy as it also is considered a violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines here. Expect to have your writing removed from FFL. Expect to have your posts moderated. Expect to have your membership revoked if such invasion of people's privacy continues either as by impulse without intent or with meditated intent to abuse someone by invasion of privacy as used in method. For instance, as people signing on to FFL do post and people do respond with replies then for example in reply: 'Turqb isTurqb', 'Fleetwood is Fleetwood', 'CDB is CDB', 'Serious is Serious', 'Buck is Buck', 'Nablusoss is Nablusoss', and 'Authfriend is Authfriend'. Whatever their legal names in life may be, now going forward you shall be moderate in this as Rick originally intended. Show self-restraint and respect for other people's privacy here. Simple. That is part of the communal collaboration asked for in making this a particular free-speech zone as it was hoped for. Have a nice day, -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks A., good to know. In going forward with moderation on FFL, protection of privacy has always been a mainstay feature of FFL as Rick's free speech list. This feature of protection has been under siege and fallen to a form of a disrespect used by some writers on FFL. Everyone take this as a warning right now going forward: where someone posting to the list uses an anonymous screen name it is quite proper form on FFL as a yahoo-group to respond to posts using a person's screen name and make no mention of their real name otherwise. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Please ignore what he says about me. He has it completely wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Serious_Richard brings up in this particular thread an important point about privacy on FFL. From the beginning Rick has been intent on creating a safe-space of privacy for folks to post on FFL. Rick's principles in creating safe-space have been under attack, degraded and methodically violated by some writers here evidently to abuse or intimidate other folks personally who have been
Re: [FairfieldLife] Buh By
Hey Barry, I don't know what Doug's role in this was except it was after the fact of me emailing Rick. Funny troll graphic with non English speaker spelling. Thanks for understanding the need to be careful not to stir what must be kept in the ground. The Doug as CEO (his term) of FFL seems to be a case of someone wanting control of what other people say on the forum who was not popularly supported to take that role with us. There was no Yahoo guidelines problem here, this was a contrivance to assert unwanted control over posters here. The warning to Edg was the first indication of the new direction. I hope the push back on that as enough to stop further moves. Reading Edg without F bombs would be like drinking a Roy Rodgers at a bourbon bar. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Thanks for explaining that, Curtis. It adds credence to my intuitive inner feeling when I read Doug's announcement -- that by adopting the Royal we, he was trying to take credit for something that someone with more integrity than he has had done. Message received about not speaking ill of the dead, to make sure they stay that way. Graphics are cool, though...right? :-) From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Buh By Here is how it went down. R was phishing for my professional name. I told him that I keep my names separate on social media to prevent casual searches from combining my business and personal life. He responded by posting my personal Facebook page to out my real name AGAIN. While this was going on Doug was occupied scolding Edg for his word choices that have never given Yahoo groups any trouble since he has been posting here. So I emailed Rick who acted immediately to restore order in the kingdom. Last time R did this he got banned for a month but was brought back because he was being talked about and couldn't respond. Personally I would like to see him stay in his crypt this time. I have not experienced such bizarrely unwarranted online malice since the other malicious R was ousted for trying to F me on the search engines. Both times Rick acted to protect my participation here and I appreciate that. Posting on FFL has been a useful tool for me. I hope it can remain so. That way that happens IMO is for moderators to take out predators with clearly malicious agendas and leave the rest of the adults alone to post their mind freely with having to to worry: I wonder what another person with more prudish language standards than I have will think about what I write? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : All of what I say below said, and meant, I don't think I'm alone here in saying that if the poster banned for outing someone turns out to be Tedious Dickhead, we can consider Doug's short tenure as FFL moderator a total success. :-) From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Speaking of the Yahoo-Groups Guidelines, I just wanted to let you know that the 1,680-word rant that someone keeps spamming to Fairfield Life in violation of the guidelines has shown up again. Some hacker seems to have pasted it into your post, just after the announcement. Much of it (everything after the first 300 words or so) seems to have been written by a previous poster to Fairfield Life who, as I understand it, was specifically asked by Rick not to insinuate his faux persona into the duties of moderator. Just sayin'... I know you'll want to get right on this. Turq B survived the first putsch. That's a relief. Yeah. Like Michael, I seriously wondered when I pressed Send whether my post would go through. :-) But I think the guidelines will be posted regularly to keep the fear quotient high. Uniform blandness will be achieved! I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the *actual* Yahoo-Groups Guidelines being posted regularly. What I object to are the 1,300+ words of insulting SPAM that Doug has chosen to follow them with. They were written by a fictional persona named Buck that Doug is not supposed to be channeling in his duties as FFL moderator. And yet Doug is reposting them as if *his rant* is an integral part of the guidelines. I find that remarkably un-self-aware and offensive. Not to mention being contrary to what he promised Rick. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines Dear Friends of FFL; Regrettably as moderators we recently received a compliant having to do with protecting people's privacy on FFL that was actionable. The
[FairfieldLife] Buh By
Here is how it went down. R was phishing for my professional name. I told him that I keep my names separate on social media to prevent casual searches from combining my business and personal life. He responded by posting my personal Facebook page to out my real name AGAIN. While this was going on Doug was occupied scolding Edg for his word choices that have never given Yahoo groups any trouble since he has been posting here. So I emailed Rick who acted immediately to restore order in the kingdom. Last time R did this he got banned for a month but was brought back because he was being talked about and couldn't respond. Personally I would like to see him stay in his crypt this time. I have not experienced such bizarrely unwarranted online malice since the other malicious R was ousted for trying to F me on the search engines. Both times Rick acted to protect my participation here and I appreciate that. Posting on FFL has been a useful tool for me. I hope it can remain so. That way that happens IMO is for moderators to take out predators with clearly malicious agendas and leave the rest of the adults alone to post their mind freely with having to to worry: I wonder what another person with more prudish language standards than I have will think about what I write? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : All of what I say below said, and meant, I don't think I'm alone here in saying that if the poster banned for outing someone turns out to be Tedious Dickhead, we can consider Doug's short tenure as FFL moderator a total success. :-) From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Speaking of the Yahoo-Groups Guidelines, I just wanted to let you know that the 1,680-word rant that someone keeps spamming to Fairfield Life in violation of the guidelines has shown up again. Some hacker seems to have pasted it into your post, just after the announcement. Much of it (everything after the first 300 words or so) seems to have been written by a previous poster to Fairfield Life who, as I understand it, was specifically asked by Rick not to insinuate his faux persona into the duties of moderator. Just sayin'... I know you'll want to get right on this. Turq B survived the first putsch. That's a relief. Yeah. Like Michael, I seriously wondered when I pressed Send whether my post would go through. :-) But I think the guidelines will be posted regularly to keep the fear quotient high. Uniform blandness will be achieved! I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the *actual* Yahoo-Groups Guidelines being posted regularly. What I object to are the 1,300+ words of insulting SPAM that Doug has chosen to follow them with. They were written by a fictional persona named Buck that Doug is not supposed to be channeling in his duties as FFL moderator. And yet Doug is reposting them as if *his rant* is an integral part of the guidelines. I find that remarkably un-self-aware and offensive. Not to mention being contrary to what he promised Rick. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines Dear Friends of FFL; Regrettably as moderators we recently received a compliant having to do with protecting people's privacy on FFL that was actionable. The offending post was removed and the author of the invasion on someone's privacy using FFL, a Yahoo-group, was removed from the community. -JaiGuruYou Your use of Groups is subject to these Guidelines, Keep your content relevant to the group and moderate it correctly. Be courteous. Moderate your content. “Don't threaten, harass, impersonate, or hurt others, and don't invade other people's privacy. ..the group owner may remove your content — or you — from the group altogether. “2. Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity or ranting.” Exploitative, especially: unfairly or cynically using another person or group for profit or advantage; to use selfishly for one's own ends. Degrading: causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating Belligerence: a warlike or aggressively hostile nature, condition, or attitude. Insult: to speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action. An insult is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is disrespectful or scornful. Slur: an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation. Profanity: abusive, vulgar, or irreverent. To Rant, to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buh By
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : We do too. Willytex is one of the very few few people here I won't miss because he really did just come here to stir trouble. What he got out of it is anyone's guess. I've been calling for Rick and Alex to set him free for ages because there must surely be something positive in his life for him to concentrate on. Who in their right mind would want to carry on wasting their time like that? Hope to see a bit more of you old chap. Me: Thanks man. I was quite wary of posting while he was still here the second time because I could tell he wasn't going to stop trying to F with my business. In a weird way it was basically suicide by moderator (rather than by cop) because I told him exactly what would happen if he used my real name again. So it wasn't like the outcome was a big mystery. Internet weirdness! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Here is how it went down. R was phishing for my professional name. I told him that I keep my names separate on social media to prevent casual searches from combining my business and personal life. He responded by posting my personal Facebook page to out my real name AGAIN. While this was going on Doug was occupied scolding Edg for his word choices that have never given Yahoo groups any trouble since he has been posting here. So I emailed Rick who acted immediately to restore order in the kingdom. Last time R did this he got banned for a month but was brought back because he was being talked about and couldn't respond. Personally I would like to see him stay in his crypt this time. I have not experienced such bizarrely unwarranted online malice since the other malicious R was ousted for trying to F me on the search engines. Both times Rick acted to protect my participation here and I appreciate that. Posting on FFL has been a useful tool for me. I hope it can remain so. That way that happens IMO is for moderators to take out predators with clearly malicious agendas and leave the rest of the adults alone to post their mind freely with having to to worry: I wonder what another person with more prudish language standards than I have will think about what I write? We do too. Willytex is one of the very few few people here I won't miss because he really did just come here to stir trouble. What he got out of it is anyone's guess. I've been calling for Rick and Alex to set him free for ages because there must surely be something positive in his life for him to concentrate on. Who in their right mind would want to carry on wasting their time like that? Hope to see a bit more of you old chap. Me: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : All of what I say below said, and meant, I don't think I'm alone here in saying that if the poster banned for outing someone turns out to be Tedious Dickhead, we can consider Doug's short tenure as FFL moderator a total success. :-) From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Speaking of the Yahoo-Groups Guidelines, I just wanted to let you know that the 1,680-word rant that someone keeps spamming to Fairfield Life in violation of the guidelines has shown up again. Some hacker seems to have pasted it into your post, just after the announcement. Much of it (everything after the first 300 words or so) seems to have been written by a previous poster to Fairfield Life who, as I understand it, was specifically asked by Rick not to insinuate his faux persona into the duties of moderator. Just sayin'... I know you'll want to get right on this. Turq B survived the first putsch. That's a relief. Yeah. Like Michael, I seriously wondered when I pressed Send whether my post would go through. :-) But I think the guidelines will be posted regularly to keep the fear quotient high. Uniform blandness will be achieved! I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the *actual* Yahoo-Groups Guidelines being posted regularly. What I object to are the 1,300+ words of insulting SPAM that Doug has chosen to follow them with. They were written by a fictional persona named Buck that Doug is not supposed to be channeling in his duties as FFL moderator. And yet Doug is reposting them as if *his rant* is an integral part of the guidelines. I find that remarkably un-self-aware and offensive. Not to mention being contrary to what he promised Rick. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Yahoo-Groups Guidelines Dear Friends of FFL; Regrettably as moderators we recently received a compliant having to do with protecting people's privacy on FFL that was
