[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age. And that, is slander ! You just did it again. It's in your blood. You are a liar and a slanderer. That's your life, and you love it. Nabbie: do you think that it's possible that Rick Archer is a CIA agent? Do they use nitwits in the CIA ? I don't know. Do you think Rick is one of the CIA agents that Maharishi was referring to when he suggested that the TMO had been infiltrated by the CIA?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bob_brigante Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. I usually ignore grupenfuehrer musings, but this is truly ridiculous and unnecessary. Nobody at Yahoo is going to think that a URL is the basis for an adult rating, and it does sometimes happen that the group needs to post a URL linking to an adult site in order to clarify an item under discussion. For instance, a poster here cited a BJ sandwich, a term which was misunderstood by readers here and which I did not understand either -- so I posted a link to a site which graphically depicted what this term meant. Trivial, true, but 99and 44/100ths of what goes on in this list is pure tripe, and in any event, layering even more rules on the list will make your job as moderator unnecessarily difficult as well as making people afraid of stepping over some completely useless and unnecessary lines -- a URL is a URL, period and nobody cares unless they are moderating a site intended only for children. You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints !
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age. But it would be ok if he (she) were sleeping with disciples his/her own age or older? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age. And that, is slander !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age. And that, is slander ! You just did it again. It's in your blood. You are a liar and a slanderer. That's your life, and you love it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:15 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age. And that, is slander ! It's slander if it isn't true. It's not if it is. I'm open to the possibility that it isn't. Are you open to the possibility that it is?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age. And that, is slander ! You just did it again. It's in your blood. You are a liar and a slanderer. That's your life, and you love it. Nabbie: do you think that it's possible that Rick Archer is a CIA agent?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. Really ? If so, may I suggest you stop posting slander about Saints ! I've never posted slander about saints, because by definition, a man is not a saint if he's committing pedophilia or sleeping with disciples half his age. And that, is slander ! You just did it again. It's in your blood. You are a liar and a slanderer. That's your life, and you love it. Nabbie: do you think that it's possible that Rick Archer is a CIA agent? Do they use nitwits in the CIA ?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:48 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologise. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Judy, Since it seems Alex is going to ignore my question, I'll put it to you: why should FFLers care if we're dumped into an adult rating? It's been explained several times that if FFL is in the Adult category, folks won't be able to find the group with the Find a Yahoo! Group feature, unless they know to search for Adult, and then they'll have 90,721 groups to look through to find us. If FFL isn't classified as adult, in contrast, they can do a search for Transcendental Meditation, and they'll have to go through only 49 groups. That's true, and it's also true that when we got classified as Adult, people couldn't view FFL on public library computers. It might also be that they were blocked on some school and university computers. I don't know. I think FFL works best as an open, easy to find forum with extensive, diverse participation. It would definitely hurt the group to be slapped with an Adult classification. I don't know where Yahoo draws the line, or who decides. They probably don't even know what's going on unless someone brings it to their attention, as happened last time. So we have to decide what's appropriate. It's a very subjective judgment; not clear-cut. I guess ultimately it's my responsibility to decide, so I will. Here's my decision: I say there's little distinction between posting links to porn and posting actual porn. I don't see how the site Shemp linked to provided any useful embellishment of his point. We all know or can imagine what porn looks like, and if we don't, we can find it easily enough ourselves. We don't need FFL to provide links. We have a pretty broad definition of what is permissible to post. I don't think banning links to porn is excessively restrictive. As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. The same goes for the use of expletives in the way we address one another. I don't like it, and don't indulge in it myself, but I think it would be too restrictive to ban it. So I say there's no need for Alex to apologize, and I appreciate his diligence and good judgment in deleting Shemp's post. I'll edit the FFL guidelines now to forbid linking to porn. Sonia Sotomayor, move over. I want your job.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
On Jun 13, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I say there's little distinction between posting links to porn and posting actual porn. Duh. You'd think this would be fairly obvious, especially to people meditating for decades who supposedly have imporved mental functioning. I don't see how the site Shemp linked to provided any useful embellishment of his point. We all know or can imagine what porn looks like, and if we don't, we can find it easily enough ourselves. We don't need FFL to provide links. We have a pretty broad definition of what is permissible to post No kidding. Shemp's complaint is--surprise!-- silly and self-serving. And what's he doing trolling porn sites anyway? Slow week at Bellevue, Shemp? Sonia Sotomayor, move over. I want your job. Sonia?? I'd say you've outdone Solomon with this one. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: snip As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. It's a tough call, because it's a matter of deciding what might be offensive enough to a visitor that they'd go and report us to Yahoo. But if the person for some reason wants to do FFL dirt, the treshold may be pretty low. Edg's post was pretty explicit, more than enough, I should think, to serve as an excuse to report FFL to Yahoo. And he's not the only one by any means to have sexually explicit language in his posts. I'm inclined to think we might be better off to let the chips fall where they may and deal with such a report if and when it happens again, rather than trying to thread this very foggy needle. snip So I say there's no need for Alex to apologize For the record, Shemp wanted Alex to apologize for saying he had posted porn when he had not, in fact, done so. As Shemp pointed out, once the post had been deleted, there was no way for readers to know he'd only posted a link.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: snip Duh. You'd think this would be fairly obvious, especially to people meditating for decades who supposedly have imporved mental functioning. The irony of *Sal*, of all people, disparaging anybody else's mental functioning is stunning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jun 13, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I say there's little distinction between posting links to porn and posting actual porn. Duh. You'd think this would be fairly obvious, especially to people meditating for decades who supposedly have imporved mental functioning. In Shemp's defense, the guidelines did not specifically mention posting links to porn. I agree with Rick that there's little distinction, but I should have specified in my response to his post that it was uncool that he posted a link to porn, and I apologize for not having been more precise and specific in my language. I don't see how the site Shemp linked to provided any useful embellishment of his point. We all know or can imagine what porn looks like, and if we don't, we can find it easily enough ourselves. We don't need FFL to provide links. We have a pretty broad definition of what is permissible to post Once a post has been deleted, it can not be undeleted, but for the record, here it is again, minus the URL: : Quoting shempmcgurk : Remember Lance Black, the guy who weeped at the Oscars when he won for the screenplay for Milk? Oh, the poor baby tugged at our heartstrings. Well, the physical union between man and man is, of course, equal to that of woman to man and a marriage recognizing that union is, of course, a civil right. So why not celebrate this kind of physical union, thanks to Mr. Black: [URL deleted] Isn't he adorable? : End Quote :
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:35 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: snip As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. I'm inclined to think we might be better off to let the chips fall where they may and deal with such a report if and when it happens again, rather than trying to thread this very foggy needle. I agree. snip So I say there's no need for Alex to apologize For the record, Shemp wanted Alex to apologize for saying he had posted porn when he had not, in fact, done so. As Shemp pointed out, once the post had been deleted, there was no way for readers to know he'd only posted a link. Fine distinction. One click and you're at the porn. Recently, a blind person joined FFL, thinking she was going to find some spiritual discussion. I cringed as I imagined her listening aloud to some of the stuff that gets posted here. Get the kids out of the room, I'm going to listen to FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. It's a tough call, because it's a matter of deciding what might be offensive enough to a visitor that they'd go and report us to Yahoo. Someone should point out that it's not a *visitor* that we have to fear reporting us to Yahoo. The only incident designed to get Fairfield Life shut down came from a TM TB meditator, a siddha who claims to regularly attend WPA's in Fairfield. Speaks volumes, doesn't it? A visitor wouldn't give a shit. Only someone who was seriously ATTACHED -- either to his ego or his beliefs or both -- and who was not only so full of samskaras that he forms grudges and holds onto them for years *but who feels entitled to ACT on those grudges* would be someone who would report FFL to Yahoo for anything said here. And do we have a few of those? You betcha. There's a scientific study in that somewhere...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. It's a tough call, because it's a matter of deciding what might be offensive enough to a visitor that they'd go and report us to Yahoo. Someone should point out that it's not a *visitor* that we have to fear reporting us to Yahoo. Visitor = someone who visits the group (i.e., all of us regular posters, plus all the lurkers). And as I went on to say (and Barry snipped): But if the person for some reason wants to do FFL dirt, the treshold may be pretty low.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:35 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. I'm inclined to think we might be better off to let the chips fall where they may and deal with such a report if and when it happens again, rather than trying to thread this very foggy needle. I agree. OK, but I was including links as well. If it were up to me, the only thing I'd ban would be spam. snip So I say there's no need for Alex to apologize For the record, Shemp wanted Alex to apologize for saying he had posted porn when he had not, in fact, done so. As Shemp pointed out, once the post had been deleted, there was no way for readers to know he'd only posted a link. Fine distinction. One click and you're at the porn. Not that fine. Imagine the hoohah if he'd actually posted the photos. He *should* have included a NSFW warning, though. So should Edg, for that matter. Anyway, Alex has now apologized, so it's a moot point.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
Also, if someone does a google search on something that is discussed in FFL, hits may come up to one or more FFL posts. That has helped bring new members to FFL in the past. Those search hits would be turned off if FFL were in the Adult category. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Sat, 6/13/09, Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com wrote: From: Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 1:14 PM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:48 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologise. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Judy, Since it seems Alex is going to ignore my question, I'll put it to you: why should FFLers care if we're dumped into an adult rating? It's been explained several times that if FFL is in the Adult category, folks won't be able to find the group with the Find a Yahoo! Group feature, unless they know to search for Adult, and then they'll have 90,721 groups to look through to find us. If FFL isn't classified as adult, in contrast, they can do a search for Transcendental Meditation, and they'll have to go through only 49 groups. That's true, and it's also true that when we got classified as Adult, people couldn't view FFL on public library computers. It might also be that they were blocked on some school and university computers. I don't know. I think FFL works best as an open, easy to find forum with extensive, diverse participation. It would definitely hurt the group to be slapped with an Adult classification. I don't know where Yahoo draws the line, or who decides. They probably don't even know what's going on unless someone brings it to their attention, as happened last time. So we have to decide what's appropriate. It's a very subjective judgment; not clear-cut. I guess ultimately it's my responsibility to decide, so I will. Here's my decision: I say there's little distinction between posting links to porn and posting actual porn. I don't see how the site Shemp linked to provided any useful embellishment of his point. We all know or can imagine what porn looks like, and if we don't, we can find it easily enough ourselves. We don't need FFL to provide links. We have a pretty broad definition of what is permissible to post. I don't think banning links to porn is excessively restrictive. As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. The same goes for the use of expletives in the way we address one another. I don't like it, and don't indulge in it myself, but I think it would be too restrictive to ban it. So I say there's no need for Alex to apologize, and I appreciate his diligence and good judgment in deleting Shemp's post. I'll edit the FFL guidelines now to forbid linking to porn. Sonia Sotomayor, move over. I want your job.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:48 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologise. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Judy, Since it seems Alex is going to ignore my question, I'll put it to you: why should FFLers care if we're dumped into an adult rating? It's been explained several times that if FFL is in the Adult category, folks won't be able to find the group with the Find a Yahoo! Group feature, unless they know to search for Adult, and then they'll have 90,721 groups to look through to find us. If FFL isn't classified as adult, in contrast, they can do a search for Transcendental Meditation, and they'll have to go through only 49 groups. That's true, and it's also true that when we got classified as Adult, people couldn't view FFL on public library computers. It might also be that they were blocked on some school and university computers. I don't know. I think FFL works best as an open, easy to find forum with extensive, diverse participation. It would definitely hurt the group to be slapped with an Adult classification. I don't know where Yahoo draws the line, or who decides. They probably don't even know what's going on unless someone brings it to their attention, as happened last time. So we have to decide what's appropriate. It's a very subjective judgment; not clear-cut. I guess ultimately it's my responsibility to decide, so I will. Here's my decision: I say there's little distinction between posting links to porn and posting actual porn. I don't see how the site Shemp linked to provided any useful embellishment of his point. We all know or can imagine what porn looks like, and if we don't, we can find it easily enough ourselves. We don't need FFL to provide links. We have a pretty broad definition of what is permissible to post. I don't think banning links to porn is excessively restrictive. As for colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. The same goes for the use of expletives in the way we address one another. I don't like it, and don't indulge in it myself, but I think it would be too restrictive to ban it. So I say there's no need for Alex to apologize, and I appreciate his diligence and good judgment in deleting Shemp's post. I'll edit the FFL guidelines now to forbid linking to porn. Sonia Sotomayor, move over. I want your job. I usually ignore grupenfuehrer musings, but this is truly ridiculous and unnecessary. Nobody at Yahoo is going to think that a URL is the basis for an adult rating, and it does sometimes happen that the group needs to post a URL linking to an adult site in order to clarify an item under discussion. For instance, a poster here cited a BJ sandwich, a term which was misunderstood by readers here and which I did not understand either -- so I posted a link to a site which graphically depicted what this term meant. Trivial, true, but 99and 44/100ths of what goes on in this list is pure tripe, and in any event, layering even more rules on the list will make your job as moderator unnecessarily difficult as well as making people afraid of stepping over some completely useless and unnecessary lines -- a URL is a URL, period and nobody cares unless they are moderating a site intended only for children.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bob_brigante Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. I usually ignore grupenfuehrer musings, but this is truly ridiculous and unnecessary. Nobody at Yahoo is going to think that a URL is the basis for an adult rating, and it does sometimes happen that the group needs to post a URL linking to an adult site in order to clarify an item under discussion. For instance, a poster here cited a BJ sandwich, a term which was misunderstood by readers here and which I did not understand either -- so I posted a link to a site which graphically depicted what this term meant. Trivial, true, but 99and 44/100ths of what goes on in this list is pure tripe, and in any event, layering even more rules on the list will make your job as moderator unnecessarily difficult as well as making people afraid of stepping over some completely useless and unnecessary lines -- a URL is a URL, period and nobody cares unless they are moderating a site intended only for children. You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bob_brigante Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. I usually ignore grupenfuehrer musings, but this is truly ridiculous and unnecessary. Nobody at Yahoo is going to think that a URL is the basis for an adult rating, and it does sometimes happen that the group needs to post a URL linking to an adult site in order to clarify an item under discussion. For instance, a poster here cited a BJ sandwich, a term which was misunderstood by readers here and which I did not understand either -- so I posted a link to a site which graphically depicted what this term meant. Trivial, true, but 99and 44/100ths of what goes on in this list is pure tripe, and in any event, layering even more rules on the list will make your job as moderator unnecessarily difficult as well as making people afraid of stepping over some completely useless and unnecessary lines -- a URL is a URL, period and nobody cares unless they are moderating a site intended only for children. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. The way I see it, there's someone out there who would love nothing more than to have FFL shut down or at least shrouded in the obscurity of the adult groups, so I err on the side of caution. If you do decide to allow people to post URL's to sexually explicit content, at the very least, people should be required to post a warning along with the URL. That is a common rule on blogs and message boards because people often use Internet access at work, and they don't want porn suddenly appearing on their monitors. Typically, the warning is in the form of [link NSFW], meaning link is not safe for work. Of course, shemp will probably piss and moan about that rule, too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
I never heard of the acronym NSFW before, so maybe that's not the best warning. :) Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Sat, 6/13/09, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 7:26 PM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bob_brigante Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. I usually ignore grupenfuehrer musings, but this is truly ridiculous and unnecessary. Nobody at Yahoo is going to think that a URL is the basis for an adult rating, and it does sometimes happen that the group needs to post a URL linking to an adult site in order to clarify an item under discussion. For instance, a poster here cited a BJ sandwich, a term which was misunderstood by readers here and which I did not understand either -- so I posted a link to a site which graphically depicted what this term meant. Trivial, true, but 99and 44/100ths of what goes on in this list is pure tripe, and in any event, layering even more rules on the list will make your job as moderator unnecessarily difficult as well as making people afraid of stepping over some completely useless and unnecessary lines -- a URL is a URL, period and nobody cares unless they are moderating a site intended only for children. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. The way I see it, there's someone out there who would love nothing more than to have FFL shut down or at least shrouded in the obscurity of the adult groups, so I err on the side of caution. If you do decide to allow people to post URL's to sexually explicit content, at the very least, people should be required to post a warning along with the URL. That is a common rule on blogs and message boards because people often use Internet access at work, and they don't want porn suddenly appearing on their monitors. Typically, the warning is in the form of [link NSFW], meaning link is not safe for work. Of course, shemp will probably piss and moan about that rule, too. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bob_brigante Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. I usually ignore grupenfuehrer musings, but this is truly ridiculous and unnecessary. Nobody at Yahoo is going to think that a URL is the basis for an adult rating, and it does sometimes happen that the group needs to post a URL linking to an adult site in order to clarify an item under discussion. For instance, a poster here cited a BJ sandwich, a term which was misunderstood by readers here and which I did not understand either -- so I posted a link to a site which graphically depicted what this term meant. Trivial, true, but 99and 44/100ths of what goes on in this list is pure tripe, and in any event, layering even more rules on the list will make your job as moderator unnecessarily difficult as well as making people afraid of stepping over some completely useless and unnecessary lines -- a URL is a URL, period and nobody cares unless they are moderating a site intended only for children. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open to revision. The way I see it, there's someone out there who would love nothing more than to have FFL shut down or at least shrouded in the obscurity of the adult groups, so I err on the side of caution. If you do decide to allow people to post URL's to sexually explicit content, at the very least, people should be required to post a warning along with the URL. That is a common rule on blogs and message boards because people often use Internet access at work, and they don't want porn suddenly appearing on their monitors. Typically, the warning is in the form of [link NSFW], meaning link is not safe for work. Of course, shemp will probably piss and moan about that rule, too. Actually, since Shemp is posting during working hours, I don't think he'll beef about that proposed rule, but since the great majority of posters here are not posting from work computers (and they would put themselves at risk just by wasting company time even if they never visited any porn sites), there's no need to make any more rules about posting. The trouble with worrying about what may offend some is that you end up being so politically correct that you can't do anything. You referred to somebody as a cute sexy young guy in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/211261 -- what if somebody says you're crossing over a line here? Unless Yahoo officially complains about posts here, a very unlikely event since the provocateur who caused an adult classification problem here before was easily dealt with by Rick, the moderators should not be making more and more rules about what is OK to post and what not. I like the shock value of making some posts to shocking links (and I will even use tiny.url to mask the XXX nature of the URL sometimes). This is not an adult site, but we're all adults, so let's not get too prissy, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: The trouble with worrying about what may offend some is that you end up being so politically correct that you can't do anything. Right, so not allowing porn links to be posted means there's now a hyper politically correct climate on FFL where everyone is terrified, TERRIFIED!!!, of saying *anything* that may offend. You referred to somebody as a cute sexy young guy in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/211261 -- what if somebody says you're crossing over a line here? They are free to say it, and I am free to ignore it. Referring to someone as a cute sexy young guy does not cross the same line as posting links to explicit photos of cute sexy young guys having anal sex. To be honest, I find your efforts to conflate mild language like that with explicit pornographic imagery rather bizarre, and I hope Rick has the wisdom to disregard it.
