subject:"\[FairfieldLife\] Re\: Fw\: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me\?"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-22 Thread awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 Perhaps we never have a vote here, this is Rick's place. But it is clear there 
is divided opinion on this issue. So geezerfreak posts once a month or so. When 
people vote in an election, some are involved in politics all year round, and 
then vote for whom they like, while others pay no attention to politics at all, 
and then just the same, vote for the one whom they like best, or against the 
one they hate the worst as the case may be. Under the system, they both have 
the same right to vote.  

 We do not have a vote here, but we do have preferences and we are expressing 
them. And this is precisely the issue at hand, whether we can speak our minds 
freely, or have our speech suppressed by would be manipulators, who would 
prefer we only think their kind of thoughts and ideas. When your ideas are not 
challenged mightily, you brain dries up like old pudding sitting on a shelf. 
People like Turq cannot manipulate you if you simply ignore what they say. You 
have a choice not to interact. If you cannot deal with it, but nonetheless read 
it, and complain, it means you are complicit, a partner in crime, if you so 
characterise what someone is saying.
 

 We know this is what you believe, you have said it enough times here and over 
at The Peak, but it doesn't make it necessarily true for anyone but yourself. 
Others, like myself, don't see repetition, endless haranguing and the lack of 
thoughtful input by another to be anything that stimulates creative thought or 
opens ones mind (and I am not just talking about Turq). And I would certainly 
insist that to not respond to those on this planet who spread lies and seek to 
manipulate the truth in some mean-spirited manner are for more complicit, a 
partner in crime. There are always those willing to turn a blind eye to both 
injustice and falsehoods and this makes them, what? Complicit but it is hardly 
indicative of a strong or open nature and certainly does nothing to further 
positivity on the planet.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 says the one post a month, twelve posts a year, guy
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-22 Thread Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Oy, LaughingG, only seen this quote in print, never heard it sung before. And 
still haven't! Prefer to keep my ears unclogged with sugar, but thanks for 
sharing LOL (-:

  From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

snip Share: In thanks, 2 Vedic bits I love about Brahman:Far in the distance 
I see the owner of the house reverberating.  LG: https://youtu.be/VZtj5Aa1w4w. 
Now excuse me while I go puke...forgive me, I never did like those Mother 
Divine songs! Share: Which I take to mean that the person I think is the least 
like me, is actually an expression of my Self. Stops one in one's tracks...if 
one is lucky! LG: Nice verse. Not only what you think but everything...all this 
is That on the level of all experience. Those that know, don't talk, and those 
that talk, don't know. End of discussion. :)
Share: Braham says: my indestructible maya. Or as Tom Traynor may have said, 
it's all just the Divine playing peekaboo, pretending not to see itself. Just 
for the play of it.
LG: No comment. :) Share: Wishing fathers and everyone a very playful day.
LG: Thank you Share.
From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 12:36 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for 
me?

  Share, you caught me completely by surprise with a response...it's good to 
hear from you! It was not my intention to draw you out of lurkerdom...I also 
enjoy lurking in the shadows...sinister laugh...and really don't understand my 
fascination with this place unless it's just to see what nuggets I can glean 
from the posts...you've just offered up a few. Anyway, it's good to see old 
friends returning to the place and I'm enjoying their posts. There's a 
satisfaction...dare I say comfort...in knowing that we're not going to change 
who we are, yet it doesn't matter, because it shouldn't prevent us from perhaps 
finding some value in what each other has to say...we are always in control of 
how what we read influences us, and can turn the reaction/response switch on 
and off.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

dear laughingG, thank you, not the least of which, for putting me with such 
interesting, dare I say riveting, posters, the 3 Rs (-:
To my amazement, I have become a lurker, and a happy one at that. Same on the 
Peak. And the recent FFL developments fascinate me. Most everything about 
online communication fascinates me. Are all those very different voices really 
inside my own awareness? I think so. Astonishment!
If we're not at peace with a certain voice that seems to be outside us, it does 
no good to censor it. It will merely show up in our lives somewhere else. 
Better to make peace with it, with all the parts of our self.
From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 11:04 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for 
me?
 As I read through most posts, I often find something to appreciate in what 
every author has written...Judy, TB, Xeno, CDB, Doug/Buck, Ann, Jim, Steve, 
Nabby, MJ, and even folks that no longer (or can no longer) post here including 
Share, Robin, Ravi, and even Richard (I guess these are the three 'Rs'). As I 
read, I think that I can sense the author's intent in what they are 
writing...sometimes it's malicious or purposely not playing fair in which case 
I chose not to respond although I feel bad for the writer, sometimes I have 
the aha moment and think the author is brilliant to which I sometimes respond 
with a pat on the back or choose to contribute to the discussion for as long as 
it holds my interest, sometimes I laugh out loud because the humor is subtle 
and I got the joke (Richard contributed that type of humor), etc. etc...you 
get the idea. snip 

  #yiv1654477909 #yiv1654477909 -- #yiv1654477909ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv1654477909 
#yiv1654477909ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv1654477909 
#yiv1654477909ygrp-mkp #yiv1654477909hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv1654477909 #yiv1654477909ygrp-mkp #yiv1654477909ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv1654477909 #yiv1654477909ygrp-mkp .yiv1654477909ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv1654477909 #yiv1654477909ygrp-mkp .yiv1654477909ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv1654477909 #yiv1654477909ygrp-mkp .yiv1654477909ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv1654477909 #yiv1654477909ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv1654477909ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv1654477909 
#yiv1654477909ygrp-sponsor #yiv1654477909ygrp-lc #yiv1654477909hd {margin:10px

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread laughinggull108


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 snip
  
 Share: In thanks, 2 Vedic bits I love about Brahman:
 Far in the distance I see the owner of the house reverberating. 
  
 LG: https://youtu.be/VZtj5Aa1w4w https://youtu.be/VZtj5Aa1w4w. Now excuse me 
while I go puke...forgive me, I never did like those Mother Divine songs!
  
 Share: Which I take to mean that the person I think is the least like me, is 
actually an expression of my Self. Stops one in one's tracks...if one is lucky!
  
 LG: Nice verse. Not only what you think but everything...all this is That on 
the level of all experience.
  
 Those that know, don't talk, and those that talk, don't know. End of 
discussion. :)

 Share: Braham says: my indestructible maya. Or as Tom Traynor may have said, 
it's all just the Divine playing peekaboo, pretending not to see itself. Just 
for the play of it.

 LG: No comment. :)
  
 Share: Wishing fathers and everyone a very playful day.

 LG: Thank you Share.

 
From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 12:36 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for 
me?

 
   
 Share, you caught me completely by surprise with a response...it's good to 
hear from you! It was not my intention to draw you out of lurkerdom...I also 
enjoy lurking in the shadows...sinister laugh...and really don't understand my 
fascination with this place unless it's just to see what nuggets I can glean 
from the posts...you've just offered up a few.
  
 Anyway, it's good to see old friends returning to the place and I'm enjoying 
their posts. There's a satisfaction...dare I say comfort...in knowing that 
we're not going to change who we are, yet it doesn't matter, because it 
shouldn't prevent us from perhaps finding some value in what each other has to 
say...we are always in control of how what we read influences us, and can turn 
the reaction/response switch on and off.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :


 dear laughingG, thank you, not the least of which, for putting me with such 
interesting, dare I say riveting, posters, the 3 Rs (-:
 

 To my amazement, I have become a lurker, and a happy one at that. Same on the 
Peak. And the recent FFL developments fascinate me. Most everything about 
online communication fascinates me. Are all those very different voices really 
inside my own awareness? I think so. Astonishment!
 

 If we're not at peace with a certain voice that seems to be outside us, it 
does no good to censor it. It will merely show up in our lives somewhere else. 
Better to make peace with it, with all the parts of our self.
 

 
From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 11:04 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for 
me?

  
 As I read through most posts, I often find something to appreciate in what 
every author has written...Judy, TB, Xeno, CDB, Doug/Buck, Ann, Jim, Steve, 
Nabby, MJ, and even folks that no longer (or can no longer) post here including 
Share, Robin, Ravi, and even Richard (I guess these are the three 'Rs'). As I 
read, I think that I can sense the author's intent in what they are 
writing...sometimes it's malicious or purposely not playing fair in which case 
I chose not to respond although I feel bad for the writer, sometimes I have 
the aha moment and think the author is brilliant to which I sometimes respond 
with a pat on the back or choose to contribute to the discussion for as long as 
it holds my interest, sometimes I laugh out loud because the humor is subtle 
and I got the joke (Richard contributed that type of humor), etc. etc...you 
get the idea.
  
 snip

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread laughinggull108

Ah, it's good that the whole family has returned home for the holidays...I 
raise my glass. It was starting to get a little boring around here...let's keep 
it civil, shall we, so we can enjoy each other's company for as long as we can. 
For those who must go, have a safe journey, and hurry back. Cheers...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :


 ---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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread feste37

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?

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Obviously not the entire group since some of us quite liked him and his posts.

  From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 9:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?

    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 he explicitly said:
Inmoderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state ofevolution” and 
I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and notone is on moderation 
in any way from this point. I would only suggestin our going forward that folks 
take the time to actually read theYahoo-groups guidelines if they want to 
continue fluidly posting onFFL. 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...

   #yiv0790874260 #yiv0790874260 -- #yiv0790874260ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv0790874260 
#yiv0790874260ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv0790874260 
#yiv0790874260ygrp-mkp #yiv0790874260hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv0790874260 #yiv0790874260ygrp-mkp #yiv0790874260ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv0790874260 #yiv0790874260ygrp-mkp .yiv0790874260ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv0790874260 #yiv0790874260ygrp-mkp .yiv0790874260ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv0790874260 #yiv0790874260ygrp-mkp .yiv0790874260ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0790874260 #yiv0790874260ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv0790874260ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv0790874260 
#yiv0790874260ygrp-sponsor #yiv0790874260ygrp-lc #yiv0790874260hd {margin:10px

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]


One of my favorite mantras is question authority. ;-)

Regarding MMY, right before I went to TTC, a TM teacher told me, you 
are about to have one of the most wonderful experiences in your life and 
one of the worst.  He suggested to play the game which I did and 
didn't get bumped off to the course.  I always played the game with 
the movement though there were many circumstances where it was not an issue.


On 06/21/2015 09:01 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


---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 
specific! ally 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 r! ight 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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]

Nothing because I played the game.  I did have a couple members of my 
group that got a talking to though.  They were getting fed up with some 
of the rules.  Then they started playing the game so they as Maharishi 
would say could get the goods.  I'm not sure if anyone was disallowed 
becoming a teacher except for one guy with a speech impediment. He felt 
okay about it as Maharishi met with him privately. Towards the end those 
of us who had already passed the required tests helped those who were 
still having a problem.  After all, why would you want to spend 6 month 
cooped up and not get what you came for?


On 06/21/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

what were you doing that could have gotten you kicked off?


*From:* Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 12:32 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question 
to the forum for me?


One of my favorite mantras is question authority. ;-)

Regarding MMY, right before I went to TTC, a TM teacher told me, you 
are about to have one of the most wonderful experiences in your life 
and one of the worst.  He suggested to play the game which I did 
and didn't get bumped off to the course.  I always played the game 
with the movement though there were many circumstances where it was 
not an issue.


On 06/21/2015 09:01 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
mailto:curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... 
mailto: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 specific! ally 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] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 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 :

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.

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:

Thanks for everything. You have been more than fair in all of your dealings
with Fairfield Life and with the odd group of characters

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

---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.

---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 :

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.

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:

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: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 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, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]

One of the forums I'm on has very strict rules about what to avoid
discussing. My bet is that the original founders had a BBS back in the
1980s and watched as flame wars developed. So they barred religious and
political discussion. And being a forum where there are specific topics
moderators will delete posts when they go off topic. That's why a lot
of forums have an anything goes discussion section. I've always said
FFL fills that need for folks who are or have been involved in TM to
discuss stuff that might be considered off-topic in pure spiritual
forums. It's often interesting to see where people are going with their
lives, what they like to cook or what TV shows or movies they've seen.

Either Rick gave the moderation to Doug to watch him fail or kill off
FFL so he didn't need to do so.

On 06/21/2015 07:50 AM, j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.sun...@yahoo.com 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,

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Ah ha! So the laughter in LaughingGull is sinister...very good (-:
Maybe we should call it mini lurkerdom...
In thanks, 2 Vedic bits I love about Brahman:Far in the distance I see the 
owner of the house reverberating. Which I take to mean that the person I think 
is the least like me, is actually an expression of my Self. Stops one in one's 
tracks...if one is lucky!
Braham says: my indestructible maya. Or as Tom Traynor may have said, it's 
all just the Divine playing peekaboo, pretending not to see itself. Just for 
the play of it.
Wishing fathers and everyone a very playful day.

  From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 12:36 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?
   
    Share, you caught me completely by surprise with a response...it's good to 
hear from you! It was not my intention to draw you out of lurkerdom...I also 
enjoy lurking in the shadows...sinister laugh...and really don't understand my 
fascination with this place unless it's just to see what nuggets I can glean 
from the posts...you've just offered up a few. Anyway, it's good to see old 
friends returning to the place and I'm enjoying their posts. There's a 
satisfaction...dare I say comfort...in knowing that we're not going to change 
who we are, yet it doesn't matter, because it shouldn't prevent us from perhaps 
finding some value in what each other has to say...we are always in control of 
how what we read influences us, and can turn the reaction/response switch on 
and off.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

dear laughingG, thank you, not the least of which, for putting me with such 
interesting, dare I say riveting, posters, the 3 Rs (-:
To my amazement, I have become a lurker, and a happy one at that. Same on the 
Peak. And the recent FFL developments fascinate me. Most everything about 
online communication fascinates me. Are all those very different voices really 
inside my own awareness? I think so. Astonishment!
If we're not at peace with a certain voice that seems to be outside us, it does 
no good to censor it. It will merely show up in our lives somewhere else. 
Better to make peace with it, with all the parts of our self.
  From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 11:04 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?
 As I read through most posts, I often find something to appreciate in what 
every author has written...Judy, TB, Xeno, CDB, Doug/Buck, Ann, Jim, Steve, 
Nabby, MJ, and even folks that no longer (or can no longer) post here including 
Share, Robin, Ravi, and even Richard (I guess these are the three 'Rs'). As I 
read, I think that I can sense the author's intent in what they are 
writing...sometimes it's malicious or purposely not playing fair in which case 
I chose not to respond although I feel bad for the writer, sometimes I have 
the aha moment and think the author is brilliant to which I sometimes respond 
with a pat on the back or choose to contribute to the discussion for as long as 
it holds my interest, sometimes I laugh out loud because the humor is subtle 
and I got the joke (Richard contributed that type of humor), etc. etc...you 
get the idea. snip   #yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148 -- #yiv5029269148ygrp-mkp 
{border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 
10px;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148ygrp-mkp #yiv5029269148hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148ygrp-mkp #yiv5029269148ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148ygrp-mkp .yiv5029269148ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148ygrp-mkp .yiv5029269148ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148ygrp-mkp .yiv5029269148ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv5029269148ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv5029269148 
#yiv5029269148ygrp-sponsor #yiv5029269148ygrp-lc #yiv5029269148hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv5029269148 
#yiv5029269148ygrp-sponsor #yiv5029269148ygrp-lc .yiv5029269148ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv5029269148 
#yiv5029269148activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv5029269148
 #yiv5029269148activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv5029269148 
#yiv5029269148activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv5029269148 #yiv5029269148activity span 
.yiv5029269148underline

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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_stan...@yahoo.com wrote :

What sayest thou, Doug? Is Turq gone for good?

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 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.

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:

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: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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 :

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.

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:

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: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried out
transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.sun...@yahoo.com 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 :

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.

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:

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?

2015-06-21 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

---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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

what were you doing that could have gotten you kicked off?

  From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 12:32 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the 
forum for me?

 One of my favorite mantras is question authority.  ;-) 

 Regarding MMY, right before I went to TTC, a TM teacher told me, you are 
about to have one of the most wonderful experiences in your life and one of the 
worst.  He suggested to play the game which I did and didn't get bumped off 
to the course.  I always played the game with the movement though there were 
many circumstances where it was not an issue.

 On 06/21/2015 09:01 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

    ---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 specific! ally  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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 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?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

what I am saying, is that by checking in every few months, as you say, you may 
miss some of the nuances that take place here. 

 it does not take away your right to express an opinion, it may possibly 
demonstrate that it is a less informed opinion.
 

 That would seem like a fair assessment.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 You: says the one post a month, twelve posts a year, guy
 

 Me: That's correct. You got a problem with that or are you saying that that 
the amount of posting gives you Chit credit for the worth of your opinions?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Xeno, let's unpack this a bit. 

 You, I repeat, you, are the person who has stated on several occasions that 
you have a touch of sociopath.
 

 Perhaps you can do me a favor and look up the definition of sociopath.
 

 But, here's my understanding.
 

 A sociopath is someone who takes a certain pleasure in making people 
uncomfortable, by any means. And the means don't really matter much. The goal 
is to make them uncomfortable.
 

 A true sociopath sees people as objects, and does not experience empathy or 
guilt. They do apparently experience other emotions, but not like a normal 
person. So under normal circumstances, say you had one for a friend, if you 
died, they would not care, they would move on easily. They can be manipulative 
because they have desires, things they want etc., their sense of self, is 
flexible.
 

 I seem to have a touch of this, but I am not a true sociopath. The thing here 
is people in general ('normal') get uncomfortable when their world view is 
challenged. If you take the basic idea and theory of enlightenment for example 
as being true, then until full awakening, you are not living reality at all, 
but are living a dream, a fictitious existence in which every thought and idea 
you have about the world is just plain wrong. How uncomfortable the path of 
enlightenment can be depends on how fast that fictitious world in the mind is 
ripped away. TM does it gently, slowly most of the time, so it is not horribly 
upsetting, but a person might be surprised at how uncomfortable life can be as 
the dark stuff comes to the surface. It's kind of like dying because you have 
to give up everything you thought was real. That TM is gentle, it is for gentle 
people who can't take a lot of pain, but it is also therefore, with its light 
touch, likely to be slow. To go really really fast, sometimes you need a 
crowbar or some truly horrible life experience to jar the nervous system out of 
its slumbers. Even enlightened people have residual conditioning and that 
conditioning can get challenged. They are more likely to deal with it 
gracefully and not on a personal level.
 

 In a way, enlightenment seems to create a situation similar to sociopathy, in 
that the personal level of existence drops away. This is why some 'masters' can 
be quite uncomfortable to be around, because they are not going to buy your 
shit. Of course some so-called masters can be difficult to be around because 
they are just rotten to begin with.
 

 Maybe others here don't care for a forum that has devolved into that sort of 
atmosphere due to the continual posts by one of one of the most active 
participants.
 

 That's because they are living in a fantasy world. This is, or was, the place 
to grapple with these issues. People really want to get enlightened up to a 
point, but once they begin to discover what you really have to give up to get 
over the threshold, they balk. This won't happen this way for everyone. There 
are always a few who are pretty clear to begin with, and they might have a 
really easy time of it. The probability you will be that fortunate is unlikely. 
That is just statistical, not a statement of your personal worth. Your personal 
worth is what you give up with enlightenment. What takes its place is much 
better.

 

 And, by the way, that particular participant has stated on many occasions 
that, that is his raison d'etre for participating here.
 

 I was not particularly fond of another poster here, 'R' who also was let off. 
I am happy he is gone, but Rick, for a long time, let him stay. If he had not 
crossed the line with Curtis, he still would be here. My method was to skip 
over his posts and not waste my time reading them, and set my e-mail to drop 
them in the trash folder. No problem. As long as people are not physically 
harming each other, which is impossible for the most part here, you can just 
not pay attention to what you do not like. If you do put your attention on 
these things, then you might ask yourself what are you getting off on, in 
complaining about it?
 

 I also came to dislike authfriend's posting as well, but I would never ban her 
annoying as I found her. She is sharp, in her own way a sniper like Turq. I 
consider her the polar opposite of Turq, so they are in some way very similar. 
There is an intimate relationship between opposing forces. But like matter and 
anti-matter, an explosion when they come together too closely.
 

 I think a lot of people here think of Turq as a low-vibe spiritual loser, but 
they gloss over things that show he has definite insight into spiritual 
matters. For example here is something he wrote in 2008:
 

 'One of the things I cannot help but notice, having been exposed to views of 
spirituality other than the ones dealt with in TM, is that the TM view often 
seems blissfully unaware of the occult. The occult deals not with black 
magic or other low-vibe stuff,

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

I'd still like the moderation process to be a bit more transparent, but if Doug 
and Rick discussed the Turq situation, then for me, the issue is settled. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfr...@yahoo.com wrote :

 Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Couple things. 

 Who can argue with many of the points you raise, in theory?
 

 I agree with many of them.
 

 Enlightenment should be so and so.  Enlightenment blasts away the fantasy 
world, etc., etc.
 

 Yes, your commentary on this and other issues has been beneficial to me.
 

 But, in a sense, we are a community here, and if someone is widely perceived 
to engage in trolling, as opposed to more honest type dialog, then it is my 
opinion, and, I believe, that of others, that it poisons the community 
atmosphere.
 

 And if that hi-lights a weakness in my spirituality, then I accept it. 
 

 But, personally, I don't think anything is sacrificed, when that type of 
participation is eliminated from the community
 

 In fact, I think the community atmosphere is enhanced.
 

 And then we have this notion, that said poster is here to demonstrate for the 
world that TM is a cult, and has his lurking reporter in the fold to 
document this.  It inevitably hi-jacks most any discussion to this same 
conclusion: TM is a cult, and anyone who defends it, is a cult apologist.
 

 Do you realize how tiresome that becomes after decades?
 

 I think the site will be greatly enhanced to have a break from that.
 

 

 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Xeno, let's unpack this a bit. 

 You, I repeat, you, are the person who has stated on several occasions that 
you have a touch of sociopath.
 

 Perhaps you can do me a favor and look up the definition of sociopath.
 

 But, here's my understanding.
 

 A sociopath is someone who takes a certain pleasure in making people 
uncomfortable, by any means. And the means don't really matter much. The goal 
is to make them uncomfortable.
 

 A true sociopath sees people as objects, and does not experience empathy or 
guilt. They do apparently experience other emotions, but not like a normal 
person. So under normal circumstances, say you had one for a friend, if you 
died, they would not care, they would move on easily. They can be manipulative 
because they have desires, things they want etc., their sense of self, is 
flexible.
 

 I seem to have a touch of this, but I am not a true sociopath. The thing here 
is people in general ('normal') get uncomfortable when their world view is 
challenged. If you take the basic idea and theory of enlightenment for example 
as being true, then until full awakening, you are not living reality at all, 
but are living a dream, a fictitious existence in which every thought and idea 
you have about the world is just plain wrong. How uncomfortable the path of 
enlightenment can be depends on how fast that fictitious world in the mind is 
ripped away. TM does it gently, slowly most of the time, so it is not horribly 
upsetting, but a person might be surprised at how uncomfortable life can be as 
the dark stuff comes to the surface. It's kind of like dying because you have 
to give up everything you thought was real. That TM is gentle, it is for gentle 
people who can't take a lot of pain, but it is also therefore, with its light 
touch, likely to be slow. To go really really fast, sometimes you need a 
crowbar or some truly horrible life experience to jar the nervous system out of 
its slumbers. Even enlightened people have residual conditioning and that 
conditioning can get challenged. They are more likely to deal with it 
gracefully and not on a personal level.
 

 In a way, enlightenment seems to create a situation similar to sociopathy, in 
that the personal level of existence drops away. This is why some 'masters' can 
be quite uncomfortable to be around, because they are not going to buy your 
shit. Of course some so-called masters can be difficult to be around because 
they are just rotten to begin with.
 

 Maybe others here don't care for a forum that has devolved into that sort of 
atmosphere due to the continual posts by one of one of the most active 
participants.
 

 That's because they are living in a fantasy world. This is, or was, the place 
to grapple with these issues. People really want to get enlightened up to a 
point, but once they begin to discover what you really have to give up to get 
over the threshold, they balk. This won't happen this way for everyone. There 
are always a few who are pretty clear to begin with, and they might have a 
really easy time of it. The probability you will be that fortunate is unlikely. 
That is just statistical, not a statement of your personal worth. Your personal 
worth is what you give up with enlightenment. What takes its place is much 
better.

 

 And, by the way, that particular participant has stated on many occasions 
that, that is his raison d'etre for participating here.
 

 I was not particularly fond of another poster here, 'R' who also was let off. 
I am happy he is gone, but Rick, for a long time, let him stay. If he had not 
crossed the line with Curtis, he still would be

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Xeno, as you say, enlightenment bestows upon some the ability to remain more 
aloof, at least in some respects. 

 but, it bothers me when I see what I perceive to be a mean spirited 
interaction, or a dishonest interaction.
 

 So, yes, I am absolutely complicit in this crime, and it reflects how much 
additional work I have yet to do, before I am able to be more detached from 
such things.
 

 So, thank you for pointing it out, I guess.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 Perhaps we never have a vote here, this is Rick's place. But it is clear there 
is divided opinion on this issue. So geezerfreak posts once a month or so. When 
people vote in an election, some are involved in politics all year round, and 
then vote for whom they like, while others pay no attention to politics at all, 
and then just the same, vote for the one whom they like best, or against the 
one they hate the worst as the case may be. Under the system, they both have 
the same right to vote.  

 We do not have a vote here, but we do have preferences and we are expressing 
them. And this is precisely the issue at hand, whether we can speak our minds 
freely, or have our speech suppressed by would be manipulators, who would 
prefer we only think their kind of thoughts and ideas. When your ideas are not 
challenged mightily, you brain dries up like old pudding sitting on a shelf. 
People like Turq cannot manipulate you if you simply ignore what they say. You 
have a choice not to interact. If you cannot deal with it, but nonetheless read 
it, and complain, it means you are complicit, a partner in crime, if you so 
characterise what someone is saying.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 says the one post a month, twelve posts a year, guy
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Perhaps we never have a vote here, this is Rick's place. But it is clear there 
is divided opinion on this issue. So geezerfreak posts once a month or so. When 
people vote in an election, some are involved in politics all year round, and 
then vote for whom they like, while others pay no attention to politics at all, 
and then just the same, vote for the one whom they like best, or against the 
one they hate the worst as the case may be. Under the system, they both have 
the same right to vote.  

 We do not have a vote here, but we do have preferences and we are expressing 
them. And this is precisely the issue at hand, whether we can speak our minds 
freely, or have our speech suppressed by would be manipulators, who would 
prefer we only think their kind of thoughts and ideas. When your ideas are not 
challenged mightily, you brain dries up like old pudding sitting on a shelf. 
People like Turq cannot manipulate you if you simply ignore what they say. You 
have a choice not to interact. If you cannot deal with it, but nonetheless read 
it, and complain, it means you are complicit, a partner in crime, if you so 
characterise what someone is saying.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 says the one post a month, twelve posts a year, guy
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 (snip)
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!
 

 Check this out, geeze:
 

 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 (snip)
 
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.

 

 Perhaps you've forgotten, but when Turq got flagged for that post, Doug said 
Turq had a choice of deleting it himself or having the moderators go in and do 
it.
 

 The post has not been deleted, leading one to suspect that it was not why Turq 
had his posting privileges revoked--even perhaps that Doug realized he'd been 
wrong to call him on it.
 

 (FWIW, my understanding is that although Maharishi did not attend the course 
in the flesh, he did lead it via televised conference call, and CPs got to ask 
him questions. If that's not accurate, somebody please correct me.)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Or prejudiced against someone who like myself is not a TM yes man. 

  From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 5:00 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?

    I think Doug is doing a great job as moderator. FFL should not be an 
abusive environment, and as Doug has said, the Yahoo guidelines are pretty 
simple. It should also be evident to anyone why TurquoiseB was removed, as a 
recent returnee has explained. You would have to be willfully blind not to see 
it. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote :

Nice to hear from folks again and seefolks returning and some joining FFL 
again. Feels like watching themigration flyways where waterfowl in traveling 
drop in out of the skyto rest and feed along the way.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote :

Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone fromFFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My 
master is the list owner.We had quite sufficient back and forth about this 
before taking ouradditional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in 
thecontrols.
From Soccer..   
   - A red card will be shown to a player who hascommitted a serious offence 
such as violent conduct or an illegaland purposeful obstruction of a goal 
scoring opportunity for theopposing team. A red card will also be shown to a 
player whoaccumulates two yellow cards for more minor offenses.
 These guys who have presently been ejected from FFL were wellbeyond 
accumulating two yellow cards.It was quite time for their ejections from FFL to 
secure ouralignment 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 quitesimple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well 
withinthe 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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Duveyoung


 j_alexander_stanley@... wrote :

 I'd still like the moderation process to be a bit more transparent, but if 
Doug and Rick discussed the Turq situation, then for me, the issue is settled. 

Geeze, Alex, that's so cleverly Swiss of you.  Heh.  Keyword of yours: if -- 
you're in the dark it seems, but come on, be a mensch and ASK RICK FOR US what 
in the hell he's being shy about.  YOU HAVE EASY ACCESS AND INTIMACY.  RICK'LL 
LAY IT OUT TO YOU.  

His new hired gun is pissing off half the party goers, and why the stressin' on 
us?  We'd love a report from you about Rick's response. 

Or, tell us you're management and are part of a circling of the wagons, and 
hey, maybe I'll understand, but no I won't cuz I'm being a dick about this 
issue.  Gotta be consistent.  You fer or agin us?  Take a stand.  






 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread geezerfr...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

says the one post a month, twelve posts a year, guy
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

as I go along
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 
 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: Are you serious?   Why would I want you, or anyone else to change their 
opinion about something.  All I am saying is that you are doing an awful lot of 
speculating about things that have not come to pass.
 

 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: Maybe I skim over posts too quickly.  I don't see the heavy hand of 
censorship rearing its head.  One participant has been booted, and the posting 
privileges of another has been suspended.  You feel this has been unjustly 
done.  Others feel it is long overdue.  You express your opinion about it, I 
express mine. 
 
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: I gather that there is quite a disagreement, about Barry's comments about 
David Lynch, and whether they constituted a violation of the new guidelines 
such that it justified his suspension. I was not reading FFL at that time and 
only came back once I saw his posting privileges had been revoked.  The best I 
can say, is that he attempted to obstruct the new moderator at every step, and 
so his participation was stopped.  
 

 But, I will say, that I think it was a positive action and that the site is 
better off for it.
 

 I see no one else here who comes with an overriding agenda to prove TM is a 
cult and attempts to make this point with the majority of their posts, in a 
real or imagined way.
 

 And again, the results seem to speak for themselves.  I don't see anyone's 
content being flagged.
 

 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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread geezerfr...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

You: says the one post a month, twelve posts a year, guy
 

 Me: That's correct. You got a problem with that or are you saying that that 
the amount of posting gives you Chit credit for the worth of your opinions?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Lately, with respect to how Rick deals with FFL stuff, I'm completely out of 
the loop. The last time I emailed him about a FFL issue, he didn't even 
respond. If you have burning questions for Rick, I suggest you contact him 
yourself; perhaps, you'll have better luck than me.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 j_alexander_stanley@... wrote :

 I'd still like the moderation process to be a bit more transparent, but if 
Doug and Rick discussed the Turq situation, then for me, the issue is settled. 

Geeze, Alex, that's so cleverly Swiss of you.  Heh.  Keyword of yours: if -- 
you're in the dark it seems, but come on, be a mensch and ASK RICK FOR US what 
in the hell he's being shy about.  YOU HAVE EASY ACCESS AND INTIMACY.  RICK'LL 
LAY IT OUT TO YOU.  

His new hired gun is pissing off half the party goers, and why the stressin' on 
us?  We'd love a report from you about Rick's response. 

Or, tell us you're management and are part of a circling of the wagons, and 
hey, maybe I'll understand, but no I won't cuz I'm being a dick about this 
issue.  Gotta be consistent.  You fer or agin us?  Take a stand.  






 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak@... wrote :

 Alex:  Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried 
out transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner. 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.

 

 Me: 100% agree Alex. I looked in late last week as part of my 
once-every-few-months look and was appalled to see what is going on. Turq was 
ALWAYS an interesting and entertaining poster, only rivaled by Curtis IMO. And 
now this guy Buck/Doug is running roughshod on the group deciding who is 'on 
program' and who is not? Fuck that, that is EXACTLY the kind of TMO bullshit 
that drove me from the organization in the first place.
 

 Rick, you once told me that Doug was really a great guy when I complained 
about his Buck persona to you privately years ago. I'm not in a position to 
know what kind of guy he is, great or otherwise, but he is so clearly a fucking 
joke of a moderator. Seriously, Rick are you kidding me? Unless you yourself 
have gone insane I refuse to believe you think Doug is the man for this job. 
Say it ain't so Rick!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread salyavin808


 

---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? 

 

 What's telling is what doesn't get moderated.
 

 It's a funny day when you don't have to scroll past 30 posts of trolling, 
whining and nagging and all of it aimed by people who don't contribute 
anything, except trying to be a pain in the ass, towards people who do! How 
does that work?
 

 But have an opinion about David Lynch that falls afoul of the leanings of the 
immoderator and then [gasp] chuck in a few swears and you're out of here 
without enough time to say TTFN to your mates.
 

 Is there's an agenda?
 

 These dismissive missives are a worry too. It's like Buck has turned into some 
sort of sattvic Big Brother:
 

 Thankyou for showing an interest in the moderation process. You may have 
noticed your account has been deleted. Please refer to the guidelines for 
further information. Then report to the dome to worship the unified field. It 
listens even if we don't.
 Jai Guru Us.
 



 





---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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 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?

2015-06-21 Thread awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 I think Doug is doing a great job as moderator. FFL should not be an abusive 
environment, and as Doug has said, the Yahoo guidelines are pretty simple. It 
should also be evident to anyone why TurquoiseB was removed, as a recent 
returnee has explained. You would have to be willfully blind not to see it. 
 

 I concur with feste with regard to Doug for the following reasons:
 He is about the only person willing to take on this onerous job of moderation. 
No matter who had the job there would always be those who would naysay and 
complain and raise the red flag with regard to freedom of thought and speech 
and cry foul and complain that they don't understand why so and so has been 
silenced or accuse said moderator of bias and tyrannical inclinations. It goes 
with the territory.
 Doug actually gives a shit about this place which is more than I can say for 
those who were continually shitting in the nest, so to speak. 
 Some here obviously consider FFL a kind of second home or, at least, a place 
they want/need to frequent daily - often for years. While I am not (yet) one of 
these people I have witnessed that, despite the fact they want the place to 
remain, they don't treat it like anything other than their personal soapbox to 
the detriment of the rest of the participants. Doug appears to want to create 
space for as many as possible to contribute unencumbered by other's personal 
and often selfish agendas. Great. If you wants the job then allow him the 
opportunity. My vote is for Doug at this point in time. 


---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.
 

 

 

 

 

---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?

2015-06-21 Thread awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :

 Correction, if he wants the job (not you wants the job).


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 I think Doug is doing a great job as moderator. FFL should not be an abusive 
environment, and as Doug has said, the Yahoo guidelines are pretty simple. It 
should also be evident to anyone why TurquoiseB was removed, as a recent 
returnee has explained. You would have to be willfully blind not to see it. 
 

 I concur with feste with regard to Doug for the following reasons:
 He is about the only person willing to take on this onerous job of moderation. 
No matter who had the job there would always be those who would naysay and 
complain and raise the red flag with regard to freedom of thought and speech 
and cry foul and complain that they don't understand why so and so has been 
silenced or accuse said moderator of bias and tyrannical inclinations. It goes 
with the territory.
 Doug actually gives a shit about this place which is more than I can say for 
those who were continually shitting in the nest, so to speak. 
 Some here obviously consider FFL a kind of second home or, at least, a place 
they want/need to frequent daily - often for years. While I am not (yet) one of 
these people I have witnessed that, despite the fact they want the place to 
remain, they don't treat it like anything other than their personal soapbox to 
the detriment of the rest of the participants. Doug appears to want to create 
space for as many as possible to contribute unencumbered by other's personal 
and often selfish agendas. Great. If you wants the job then allow him the 
opportunity. My vote is for Doug at this point in time. 


---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.
 

 

 

 

 

---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?

2015-06-21 Thread feste37

I think Doug is doing a great job as moderator. FFL should not be an abusive 
environment, and as Doug has said, the Yahoo guidelines are pretty simple. It 
should also be evident to anyone why TurquoiseB was removed, as a recent 
returnee has explained. You would have to be willfully blind not to see it. 


---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.
 

 

 

 

 

---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] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Why not give it a go, Curtis.

Instead of worrying about what could be, why not give it a go and see what
happens?

There are two, two people that are not here as a result of the actions of the
group owner and the new moderator.

Everything else has been pure speculation on the part of those who object to
one person having his posting privileges revoked.

You would think, by the reaction, that a muzzle has been put on the
participants here.

Where is the evidence?

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote :

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.

---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 :

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.

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Did Rick give you a green light to post solicitations for fund raising for MUM, 
Bucky?

  From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 2:32 PM
 Subject: [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 quitesimple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well 
withinthe 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 he explicitly said:
Inmoderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state ofevolution” and 
I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and notone is on moderation 
in any way from this point. I would only suggestin our going forward that folks 
take the time to actually read theYahoo-groups guidelines if they want to 
continue fluidly posting onFFL. We should appreciate your cooperative 
collaboration on this.  -JaiGuruYou! 

Seems to me there is more than a little hypocrisy, double-dealing,

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.

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 :

---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.

---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 :

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.

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 --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?

2015-06-21 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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?

2015-06-21 Thread dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.
 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 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, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 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, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

More like you are the seagull who is dropping guano in all of our nests
  From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:02 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?

    Nice to hear from folks again and seefolks returning and some joining FFL 
again. Feels like watching themigration flyways where waterfowl in traveling 
drop in out of the skyto rest and feed along the way.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote :

Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone fromFFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My 
master is the list owner.We had quite sufficient back and forth about this 
before taking ouradditional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in 
thecontrols.
From Soccer..   
   - A red card will be shown to a player who hascommitted a serious offence 
such as violent conduct or an illegaland purposeful obstruction of a goal 
scoring opportunity for theopposing team. A red card will also be shown to a 
player whoaccumulates two yellow cards for more minor offenses.
 These guys who have presently been ejected from FFL were wellbeyond 
accumulating two yellow cards.It was quite time for their ejections from FFL to 
secure ouralignment as a yahoo-group with the yahoo-guidelines.

-JaiGuruYou!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote :

Thanks for all your concern for the community here.  The yahoo-guidelines are 
really quitesimple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well 
withinthe wide margins of tolerance that are the Yahoo-groups guidelines.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

There is nothing to suggest that outcome at this point, is there?

We have one person removed from group, and one person whose posting privileges
have been suspended, who are both identified as being trolls.

No posts have been deleted by the new moderator.

There is participation by people who haven't posted in a while.

Where is the loss of free speech?

Do you not think that if what you speculate happens, that a remedy will not be
administered?

---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. 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 :

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.

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:

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Well, there it is.
 

---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@... 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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

You guys are really, really reaching on this. 

 Maybe give it a rest.
 

 Anything MUM related has been posted here from day one.
 

 Like I said, maybe give it a rest?
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 Same for me and I agree with anartaxius on this part especially:
 

 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.

Doug refuses to acknowledge that he is stumping for MUM by posting donation 
solicitations. Had he posted it with any comments, either derisive, or even a 
what do you think about this guys? then this would have been appropriate.

Appropriate posts about MUM would be a new building going up, a new program 
being offered, another bullshit lecture by a cardiologist who masquerades as a 
head shrinker but to simply put up a post asking people for donations for the 
university and defending it by saying in essence we gotta keep the university 
going so we as a meditating community won't fade away is simply showing one's 
cult mentality. 

It's on Rick to remove him as moderator, cuz he's trying to turn this into a 
pro-TM Peak. 
 

 From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 3:43 PM
 Subject: [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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 ---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.
 

 Curtis, what I wrote isn't even controversial, unless you're promoting anarchy.
 

 And of course I never suggested the moderator's job was to crush dissent when 
FFL members claim he isn't serving the forum's needs properly. Nor has Doug 
done so. Several members have done that without being sanctioned.
 

 But Turq did more than simply claim Doug wasn't serving the forum's needs 
properly. Turq declared that he was going to *ignore* Doug. Try doing that with 
your local police force. Try doing it with your boss at work. Try doing it, as 
I pointed out, with the umpire of the football game you're playing in.
 

 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.
 

 Yeah, right. First you said that isn't what you implied, then you turned right 
around and made the implication explicit, suggesting that I was doing an enemy 
of my enemy is my friend number in defending Doug, and that this was what had 
brought me out of lurkerdom.

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.
 

 I haven't actually been in full-on lurkerdom. I've popped in to have a look at 
the traffic several times since I stopped posting last June without posting 
anything myself. The first time I actually posted was back in April in response 
to a very serious provocation, a string of blatant lies told about me by 
aryavazhi. I made 11 posts in three days and then stopped again. I took another 
peek at the traffic on May 31 and found a discussion between Turq and aryavazhi 
and a comment by Xeno, made right after I'd quit, that was so hilariously 
off-base I left a post mocking them. I don't think you were around at that 
point.
 

 Then I got sucked in by some of the ridiculous posts Turq and Salavin were 
making. Doug was not involved. I had some free time, so I stuck around and was 
just getting ready to stop posting again a week later when Rick announced he 
was going to appoint a moderator. I just had to stay for awhile to see what 
happened, but now I'm about to quit posting again.
 

 IOW, I've had exactly two posting streaks since last June, a month apart, this 
being the second.
 

 Your comment above is not in accord with the facts and makes no sense at all. 
The bottom line is:
 
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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---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.

Here's my theory and I'm stickin' to it: People see what they want to see when 
the alternative is to, otherwise, have your eyes forced open or their mind 
changed in a way they aren't ready for or simply don't want to accept. In the 
case of the guy that you and I many months ago agreed we would never see eye to 
eye on, this seems to be what is going on. Consequently, what I see in 50% of 
Barry's posts not only crosses the guidelines delineated by Yahoo but the 
parameters of what constitutes open minded back and forth discourse between two 
human beings and yet you claim you don't get it. For you to ask why he was 
denied posting rights at FFL is unfathomable to me. Barry's posts show you, in 
black and white, clear as day, sock you in the eyeballs obvious why he was 
chucked outta here. It's there in front of all of us if anyone cares to take a 
good enough look with an open mind.




 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?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 ---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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Those aren't chickens, these are chickens (and chickens don't fly, btw):
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---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?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

I don't think he's talking about the increase in activity but rather the 
increase in the number of posters, four of whom are old-timers who have shown 
up since a moderator was appointed. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 ---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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Same for me and I agree with anartaxius on this part especially:
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.

Doug refuses to acknowledge that he is stumping for MUM by posting donation 
solicitations. Had he posted it with any comments, either derisive, or even a 
what do you think about this guys? then this would have been appropriate.

Appropriate posts about MUM would be a new building going up, a new program 
being offered, another bullshit lecture by a cardiologist who masquerades as a 
head shrinker but to simply put up a post asking people for donations for the 
university and defending it by saying in essence we gotta keep the university 
going so we as a meditating community won't fade away is simply showing one's 
cult mentality. 

It's on Rick to remove him as moderator, cuz he's trying to turn this into a 
pro-TM Peak. 

  From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 3:43 PM
 Subject: [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 fromFFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My 
master is the list owner.We had quite sufficient back and forth about this 
before taking ouradditional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in 
thecontrols.
From Soccer..   
   - A red card will be shown to a player who hascommitted a serious offence 
such as violent conduct or an illegaland purposeful obstruction of a goal 
scoring opportunity for theopposing team. A red card will also be shown to a 
player whoaccumulates two yellow cards for more minor offenses.
 These guys who have presently been ejected from FFL were wellbeyond 
accumulating two yellow cards.It was quite time for their ejections from FFL to 
secure ouralignment as a yahoo-group with the yahoo-guidelines.

-JaiGuruYou!


   #yiv2523276509 #yiv2523276509 -- #yiv2523276509ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote :

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.

---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 :

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.

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:

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

---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@...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

two people identified as trolls are not posting here.

no posts have been deleted by the new moderator

where is loss of freedom of expression?

another TM Movement???

---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.

---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 :

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.

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:

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-21 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Xeno, let's unpack this a bit. 

 You, I repeat, you, are the person who has stated on several occasions that 
you have a touch of sociopath.
 

 Perhaps you can do me a favor and look up the definition of sociopath.
 

 But, here's my understanding.
 

 A sociopath is someone who takes a certain pleasure in making people 
uncomfortable, by any means. And the means don't really matter much. The goal 
is to make them uncomfortable.
 

 Maybe others here don't care for a forum that has devolved into that sort of 
atmosphere due to the continual posts by one of one of the most active 
participants.
 

 And, by the way, that particular participant has stated on many occasions 
that, that is his raison d'etre for participating here.
 

---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.

 

 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 :

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.
 
   #yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158 -- #yiv9574535158ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-mkp #yiv9574535158hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-mkp #yiv9574535158ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-mkp .yiv9574535158ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-mkp .yiv9574535158ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-mkp .yiv9574535158ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-sponsor #yiv9574535158ygrp-lc #yiv9574535158hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-sponsor #yiv9574535158ygrp-lc .yiv9574535158ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv9574535158
 #yiv9574535158activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158activity span 
.yiv9574535158underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9574535158 
.yiv9574535158attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv9574535158 .yiv9574535158attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 .yiv9574535158attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv9574535158 .yiv9574535158attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv9574535158 .yiv9574535158attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv9574535158 .yiv9574535158bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv9574535158 
.yiv9574535158bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 dd.yiv9574535158last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv9574535158 dd.yiv9574535158last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv9574535158 
dd.yiv9574535158last p span.yiv9574535158yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv9574535158 div.yiv9574535158attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 div.yiv9574535158attach-table 
{width:400px;}#yiv9574535158 div.yiv9574535158file-title a, #yiv9574535158 
div.yiv9574535158file-title a:active, #yiv9574535158 
div.yiv9574535158file-title a:hover, #yiv9574535158 div.yiv9574535158file-title 
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 div.yiv9574535158photo-title a, 
#yiv9574535158 div.yiv9574535158photo-title a:active, #yiv9574535158 
div.yiv9574535158photo-title a:hover, #yiv9574535158 
div.yiv9574535158photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9574535158 
div#yiv9574535158ygrp-mlmsg #yiv9574535158ygrp-msg p a 
span.yiv9574535158yshortcuts 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv9574535158 
.yiv9574535158green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv9574535158 .yiv9574535158MsoNormal 
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv9574535158 o {font-size:0;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158photos div div {border:1px solid 
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158photos div label 
{color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv9574535158
 #yiv9574535158reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv9574535158 .yiv9574535158replbq 
{margin:4px;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-actbar div a:first-child 
{margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-mlmsg 
{font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv9574535158 input, #yiv9574535158 textarea 
{font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv9574535158 
#yiv9574535158ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv9574535158 code {font:115% 
monospace;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-mlmsg * 
{line-height:1.22em;}#yiv9574535158 #yiv9574535158ygrp-mlmsg #yiv9574535158logo

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.

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:

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?

2015-06-20 Thread jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Pastor Barry probably emailed Doug some expletives which sealed his fate.
 

---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.) 

 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

  From: authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the 
forum for me?

    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.
If your equanimity is tested and you fail, then you realise you have more work 
to do in that regard. Before I learned TM, most of what I was engaged in was 
all about button pushing and discovering the extent of one's conditioning. It 
can be valuable. This feature of spiritual technology is heavily suppressed in 
the TM movement. 
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.
Turq's post were almost always exaggerated for effect. Maharishi always 
exaggerated too to emphasise points. And in discussing metaphysical aspects of 
spirituality, there are no facts, so it does not matter if you make a mistake, 
everyone is dreaming in that regard.
I'm not sure anybody cares which R's you would or would not have removed. 
Tell that to those that argued with them, or had to wade through their posts.
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.
I suspect that is only because Rick is looking over his shoulder.

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?
Doug is a rather strange persona in my opinion, constant spamming, often a 
complete lack of original thinking in those repetitive whining post that went 
on for all those years. With Turq gone, I am interested though in seeing if he 
comes out into the sun. There have always been signs he can think independently 
of his TMO conditioning, and that the TMO has essentially excommunicated him 
perhaps it will emerge.

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.
That was an exaggeration, 19th century is a more accurate characterisation. Of 
course it is no longer the 19th century either, its a 21st century persona with 
historical influences.

Did anyone argue that personal attacks always involved profanity? Personal 
attacks do not require profanity.
Did anyone argue that personal attacks were always gratuitous? Personal attacks 
are often a response to a personal attack, they can be a reaction.
Did anyone argue that likes and dislikes have something to do with the truth? 
What do likes and dislikes have to do with truth, other than if you like the 
idea of truth, it might point the mind in looking to find out?
As for your quotes, at this point they're straw men. Nobody's freedom of speech 
has been taken away, nobody has tried to suppress others' opinions or ideas, 
nobody has censored anything.
Turq is not here so he can no longer speak freely here, his opinions have been 
now suppressed. He has been censored. So has 'R', removed by Rick. To me 'R' 
was like a swarm of mosquitoes; certainly you remember when he began to focus 
on you.

And your final paragraph is gratuitously insulting to Doug. Insulting, perhaps, 
but not gratuitous. Doug is not a free thinker, not a secular humanist, I think 
if he did not have Rick looking over his shoulder here, we would see the real 
persona unchained.
But you know, none of the interplay here is really personal, we are just text 
on a computer screen. We are trading our ideas about what we think, our ideas 
about what others are, there is no flesh and blood interaction, no real 
personal interaction. Of

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.) 

 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

dear laughingG, thank you, not the least of which, for putting me with such 
interesting, dare I say riveting, posters, the 3 Rs (-:
To my amazement, I have become a lurker, and a happy one at that. Same on the 
Peak. And the recent FFL developments fascinate me. Most everything about 
online communication fascinates me. Are all those very different voices really 
inside my own awareness? I think so. Astonishment!
If we're not at peace with a certain voice that seems to be outside us, it does 
no good to censor it. It will merely show up in our lives somewhere else. 
Better to make peace with it, with all the parts of our self.
  From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 11:04 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?
   
     As I read through most posts, I often find something to appreciate in what 
every author has written...Judy, TB, Xeno, CDB, Doug/Buck, Ann, Jim, Steve, 
Nabby, MJ, and even folks that no longer (or can no longer) post here including 
Share, Robin, Ravi, and even Richard (I guess these are the three 'Rs'). As I 
read, I think that I can sense the author's intent in what they are 
writing...sometimes it's malicious or purposely not playing fair in which case 
I chose not to respond although I feel bad for the writer, sometimes I have 
the aha moment and think the author is brilliant to which I sometimes respond 
with a pat on the back or choose to contribute to the discussion for as long as 
it holds my interest, sometimes I laugh out loud because the humor is subtle 
and I got the joke (Richard contributed that type of humor), etc. etc...you 
get the idea. This topic has become interesting to me, and my comments are 
interpersed below:

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the 
forum for me?
 J: 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. X: If your equanimity 
is tested and you fail, then you realise you have more work to do in that 
regard. Before I learned TM, most of what I was engaged in was all about button 
pushing and discovering the extent of one's conditioning. It can be valuable. 
This feature of spiritual technology is heavily suppressed in the TM movement.  
LG: Perhaps all our equanimities are being tested by the Doug/Buck persona that 
Xeno mentions below. Are we passing or failing by how each of us reacts to it? 
Those that fail, is it valuable, i.e. are we learning anything from it?
snip
J: I'm not sure anybody cares which R's you would or would not have removed. 
X: Tell that to those that argued with them, or had to wade through their 
posts. LG: Now that's funny. snip
J: 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?
X: Doug is a rather strange persona in my opinion, constant spamming, often a 
complete lack of original thinking in those repetitive whining post that went 
on for all those years. With Turq gone, I am interested though in seeing if he 
comes out into the sun. There have always been signs he can think independently 
of his TMO conditioning, and that the TMO has essentially excommunicated him 
perhaps it will emerge.
LG: Could this be the Doug/Buck form of button-pushing? If it is, then you're 
getting yours pushed big time because it elicits a response from you (and 
others) to which Doug/Buck chooses to ignore. Kinda like other button-pushers 
who, when their victims take the bait by responding, drop out of the 
conversation. The button-pusher owes no one an explanation nor wants to get 
into an endless discussion that goes nowhere. So now, let's get back to the 
value of button-pushing as a test to one's equanimity...
snip J: Did anyone argue that personal attacks were always gratuitous? X: 
Personal attacks are often a response to a personal attack, they can be a 
reaction.
LG: Doesn't there have to be a nonequanimous(?) person there for a personal 
attack to have an effect?  snip
X: Turq is not here so he can no longer speak freely here, his opinions have 
been now suppressed. He has been

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 
 LOL, looks like Judy hasn't been paying attention either.
 

 Unless I missed the post where Buck apologised to everyone for his blatant 
abuse of power and promised not to do it again because he wormed a post about 
David Lynch into his guidelines and tried to have it removed because he 
disliked the content and then deleted the poster anyway. Don't tell me you 
don't know what partisan means either!!!
 

 Don't worry Judy, we'll defend your right to post here with just as much 
vigour if you ever find you have something to say.
 

 If you can count that far, cast your eye down to the fifth paragraph below and 
read what I've highlighted in blue.
 

 Oopsie! Silly Sal.
 

 (That post isn't why Turq was deleted, BTW.)
 

 You know, Turq almost never apologized for making a mistake. You won't 
apologize for this one or any of the others you've been making lately. Why 
should Doug apologize?
 

 

---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.
 

 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.
 

 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?
 

 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.
 

 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 tried to suppress others' opinions or 
ideas, nobody has censored anything.
 

 And your final paragraph is gratuitously insulting to Doug.
 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 Getting your buttons hammered is a test of equanimity, which fails miserably 
with many, many meditators. Tuquoiseb was pretty intense this way, but also 
posted well reasoned posts and other interesting things. He was not a one note 
guy. I found authfriend just as annoying eventually as I did Turq in the 
beginning. Unlike the irrelevant posts of 'R' and the rather insanely abusive 
posts of another 'R' a few years ago. In fact those two 'Rs' were the only ones 
I would have removed from FFL myself were I in control. There was a third 'R' 
whom I found rather creepy, but he had reasoned if sometimes devious 
argumentation, so even though I did not care for him, I would not have removed 
him because I disagreed with him. Turq provided a strong pole for the 
non-theistic path of spirituality, and I miss the authfriend/turq battles of 
the past. Intellectually Turq is far more well rounded than our farmer turned 
tyrant, who I feel does not have the mental flexibility to deal with strong 
contrary views. His own posting has been spammy in mostly non-interactive, and 
until now, mostly a complaint. 

 We should note that personal attacks also do not necessarily involve profanity 
and can take on a much more subtle quality, and in this light everyone one here 
has engaged in that in my observation. It is very easy to slip from arguing 
against an idea and aiming at the person. Our moderator

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

I'm sorry you didn't understand what I wrote well enough to give meaningful 
responses. (Or perhaps you just chose to indulge in more irrelevancies.) 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the 
forum for me?

   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.

 If your equanimity is tested and you fail, then you realise you have more work 
to do in that regard. Before I learned TM, most of what I was engaged in was 
all about button pushing and discovering the extent of one's conditioning. It 
can be valuable. This feature of spiritual technology is heavily suppressed in 
the TM movement. 

 All irrelevant to my point. I'm suggesting that it's inappropriate to test 
someone by deliberately trying to upset them unless it's in an official 
teaching context.

 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.

 Turq's post were almost always exaggerated for effect. Maharishi always 
exaggerated too to emphasise points. And in discussing metaphysical aspects of 
spirituality, there are no facts, so it does not matter if you make a mistake, 
everyone is dreaming in that regard.

 Also irrelevant. The word I used was facts, not metaphysical aspects of 
spirituality, nor was I referring to obvious hyperbole. What Maharishi did or 
did not do is equally rrelevant here. I'm referring to Turq's lack of concern 
for making sure of his facts, and, more importantly, his chronic dishonesty.

 And, BTW, Turq's arguments for the non-theistic pole of spirituality were 
feeble in the extreme. He didn't have the intellectual chops even to understand 
the arguments for theism, let alone rebut them.

 I'm not sure anybody cares which R's you would or would not have removed. 

 Tell that to those that argued with them, or had to wade through their posts.

 Irrelevant. Why would they care about whether you would or would not have 
removed such people?

 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.

 I suspect that is only because Rick is looking over his shoulder.

 I doubt it, but that, again, isn't the point. (I wouldn't be at all surprised 
if Doug consulted Rick about his decisions, but otherwise I think Rick is just 
letting him do his thing, happy that somebody has taken on the moderating task.)

 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?

 Doug is a rather strange persona in my opinion, constant spamming, often a 
complete lack of original thinking in those repetitive whining post that went 
on for all those years. With Turq gone, I am interested though in seeing if he 
comes out into the sun. There have always been signs he can think independently 
of his TMO conditioning, and that the TMO has essentially excommunicated him 
perhaps it will emerge.

 Irrelevant to my points.

 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.

 That was an exaggeration, 19th century is a more accurate characterisation. Of 
course it is no longer the 19th century either, its a 21st century persona with 
historical influences.

 Duh.

 Did anyone argue that personal attacks always involved profanity? Personal 
attacks do not require

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread laughinggull108

 
 As I read through most posts, I often find something to appreciate in what 
every author has written...Judy, TB, Xeno, CDB, Doug/Buck, Ann, Jim, Steve, 
Nabby, MJ, and even folks that no longer (or can no longer) post here including 
Share, Robin, Ravi, and even Richard (I guess these are the three 'Rs'). As I 
read, I think that I can sense the author's intent in what they are 
writing...sometimes it's malicious or purposely not playing fair in which case 
I chose not to respond although I feel bad for the writer, sometimes I have 
the aha moment and think the author is brilliant to which I sometimes respond 
with a pat on the back or choose to contribute to the discussion for as long as 
it holds my interest, sometimes I laugh out loud because the humor is subtle 
and I got the joke (Richard contributed that type of humor), etc. etc...you 
get the idea.
  
 This topic has become interesting to me, and my comments are interpersed below:

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the 
forum for me?
 
 J: 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.
  
 X: If your equanimity is tested and you fail, then you realise you have more 
work to do in that regard. Before I learned TM, most of what I was engaged in 
was all about button pushing and discovering the extent of one's conditioning. 
It can be valuable. This feature of spiritual technology is heavily suppressed 
in the TM movement. 
  
 LG: Perhaps all our equanimities are being tested by the Doug/Buck persona 
that Xeno mentions below. Are we passing or failing by how each of us reacts to 
it? Those that fail, is it valuable, i.e. are we learning anything from it?

 snip

 J: I'm not sure anybody cares which R's you would or would not have removed. 
 
X: Tell that to those that argued with them, or had to wade through their posts.
  


 LG: Now that's funny.
  
 snip

 J: 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?
 
X: Doug is a rather strange persona in my opinion, constant spamming, often a 
complete lack of original thinking in those repetitive whining post that went 
on for all those years. With Turq gone, I am interested though in seeing if he 
comes out into the sun. There have always been signs he can think independently 
of his TMO conditioning, and that the TMO has essentially excommunicated him 
perhaps it will emerge.

 LG: Could this be the Doug/Buck form of button-pushing? If it is, then you're 
getting yours pushed big time because it elicits a response from you (and 
others) to which Doug/Buck chooses to ignore. Kinda like other button-pushers 
who, when their victims take the bait by responding, drop out of the 
conversation. The button-pusher owes no one an explanation nor wants to get 
into an endless discussion that goes nowhere. So now, let's get back to the 
value of button-pushing as a test to one's equanimity...

 snip
  
 J: Did anyone argue that personal attacks were always gratuitous?
  
 X: Personal attacks are often a response to a personal attack, they can be a 
reaction.


 
LG: Doesn't there have to be a nonequanimous(?) person there for a personal 
attack to have an effect? 
  
 snip
 
X: Turq is not here so he can no longer speak freely here, his opinions have 
been now suppressed. He has been censored. So has 'R', removed by Rick. To me 
'R' was like a swarm of mosquitoes; certainly you remember when he began to 
focus on you.

 LG: Another reaction to a form of button-pushing. I laughed at many of 
Richard's posts...to me, it was like an inside joke. Although he never did, if 
he began to focus on me, I'd probably ignore him unless he became malicious to 
the extent he did with outing CDB. I'm not sure if it was malicious or whether 
his constant form of joking got out of hand because he just didn't know when to 
quit. If someone asks you to stop because he/she feels uncomfortable with your 
approach to him/her, then you should just stop.

 J: And your final paragraph is gratuitously insulting to Doug.
  
 X: Insulting, perhaps, but not gratuitous. Doug is not a free

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]

Unless Alex was wrong, Doug didn't do anything.  It was Rick that gave 
Turq a time out.  This seems very Shakespearean or much ado about 
nothing.


I still go with the idea Rick gave in to Doug so he could learn that 
being a moderator was not his cuppa tea. ;-)


On 06/20/2015 09:43 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Pastor Barry probably emailed Doug some expletives which sealed his fate.



---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.)


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 o! f 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

True, it was Doug who suspended Turq's posting privileges (but, didn't actually 
boot him off the group.)  It was the other removal that was handled entirely by 
Rick. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote :

 Wrong. According to Alex, it was Doug who deprived Turq of his posting access. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote :

 Unless Alex was wrong, Doug didn't do anything.  It was Rick that gave Turq a 
time out.  This seems very Shakespearean or much ado about nothing.
 
 I still go with the idea Rick gave in to Doug so he could learn that being a 
moderator was not his cuppa tea. ;-) 
  
 On 06/20/2015 09:43 AM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
   Pastor Barry probably emailed Doug some expletives which sealed his fate.

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
authfriend@... mailto: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.) 
 
 And BTW, Xeno, there were some very smart people--some smarter than you, in 
fact--who wanted Turq removed.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
curtisdeltablues@... mailto: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 o! f 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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
anartaxius@... mailto: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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]

OK, so I remembered incorrectly but the part about a time out rather 
than unsubscribe was correct.


On 06/20/2015 12:51 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Wrong. According to Alex, it was Doug who deprived Turq of his posting 
access.




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote :

Unless Alex was wrong, Doug didn't do anything.  It was Rick that gave 
Turq a time out. This seems very Shakespearean or much ado about 
nothing.


I still go with the idea Rick gave in to Doug so he could learn that 
being a moderator was not his cuppa tea. ;-)


On 06/20/2015 09:43 AM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@...
[FairfieldLife] wrote:


Pastor Barry probably emailed Doug some expletives which sealed his fate.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... 
mailto: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.)


And BTW, Xeno, there were some very smart people--some smarter than 
you, in fact--who wanted Turq removed.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... 
mailto: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 o! f 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 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... 
mailto: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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Don't embarrass yourself, Curtis. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 ---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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 

---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?

2015-06-20 Thread laughinggull108

Share, you caught me completely by surprise with a response...it's good to hear 
from you! It was not my intention to draw you out of lurkerdom...I also enjoy 
lurking in the shadows...sinister laugh...and really don't understand my 
fascination with this place unless it's just to see what nuggets I can glean 
from the posts...you've just offered up a few.
  
 Anyway, it's good to see old friends returning to the place and I'm enjoying 
their posts. There's a satisfaction...dare I say comfort...in knowing that 
we're not going to change who we are, yet it doesn't matter, because it 
shouldn't prevent us from perhaps finding some value in what each other has to 
say...we are always in control of how what we read influences us, and can turn 
the reaction/response switch on and off.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :


 dear laughingG, thank you, not the least of which, for putting me with such 
interesting, dare I say riveting, posters, the 3 Rs (-:
 

 To my amazement, I have become a lurker, and a happy one at that. Same on the 
Peak. And the recent FFL developments fascinate me. Most everything about 
online communication fascinates me. Are all those very different voices really 
inside my own awareness? I think so. Astonishment!
 

 If we're not at peace with a certain voice that seems to be outside us, it 
does no good to censor it. It will merely show up in our lives somewhere else. 
Better to make peace with it, with all the parts of our self.
 

 
 From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 11:04 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum 
for me?

  
 As I read through most posts, I often find something to appreciate in what 
every author has written...Judy, TB, Xeno, CDB, Doug/Buck, Ann, Jim, Steve, 
Nabby, MJ, and even folks that no longer (or can no longer) post here including 
Share, Robin, Ravi, and even Richard (I guess these are the three 'Rs'). As I 
read, I think that I can sense the author's intent in what they are 
writing...sometimes it's malicious or purposely not playing fair in which case 
I chose not to respond although I feel bad for the writer, sometimes I have 
the aha moment and think the author is brilliant to which I sometimes respond 
with a pat on the back or choose to contribute to the discussion for as long as 
it holds my interest, sometimes I laugh out loud because the humor is subtle 
and I got the joke (Richard contributed that type of humor), etc. etc...you 
get the idea.
  
 snip

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Wrong. According to Alex, it was Doug who deprived Turq of his posting access. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote :

 Unless Alex was wrong, Doug didn't do anything.  It was Rick that gave Turq a 
time out.  This seems very Shakespearean or much ado about nothing.
 
 I still go with the idea Rick gave in to Doug so he could learn that being a 
moderator was not his cuppa tea. ;-) 
  
 On 06/20/2015 09:43 AM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
   Pastor Barry probably emailed Doug some expletives which sealed his fate.

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
authfriend@... mailto: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.) 
 
 And BTW, Xeno, there were some very smart people--some smarter than you, in 
fact--who wanted Turq removed.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
curtisdeltablues@... mailto: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 o! f 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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
anartaxius@... mailto: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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


---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. 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

cuppa tea,.. not cuppa tea. I'm all for letting the experiment 
play out for a minimum of 30 days, and hopefully longer. 

 I think the preliminary results have been promising.
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote :

 I still go with the idea Rick gave in to Doug so he could learn that being a 
moderator was not his cuppa tea. ;-) 
  
 On 06/20/2015 09:43 AM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
   Pastor Barry probably emailed Doug some expletives which sealed his fate.

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
authfriend@... mailto: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.) 
 
 And BTW, Xeno, there were some very smart people--some smarter than you, in 
fact--who wanted Turq removed.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
curtisdeltablues@... mailto: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 o! f 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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
anartaxius@... mailto: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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Were that true, it was not a post to a Yahoo group, but a personal e-mail and 
not subject to Yahoo groups guidelines.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :

 Pastor Barry probably emailed Doug some expletives which sealed his fate.
 

---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.) 

 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

What is past is past. Long live the present, an infinitesimal slice between a 
remembered then and an imaginary to be. But to resurrect a quote from the past: 

 'Judy is doing what she has done often before -- offering her opinion, and 
thereafter assuming it (and STATING it) as if it were fact. In other words, she 
is attempting to establish her own opinion AS fact.'

 

 

---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.
 

 Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your dead pool implication. 
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.
 

 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.
 

 
 

---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 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

P.S.: Note also that the quote itself states an opinion as if it were fact. 
Opsie! 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Oddly enough, that quote (?) doesn't seem to appear in the archives. 

 Wherever you got it from, it would be interesting if you were able to refute 
what I wrote.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 What is past is past. Long live the present, an infinitesimal slice between a 
remembered then and an imaginary to be. But to resurrect a quote from the past: 

 'Judy is doing what she has done often before -- offering her opinion, and 
thereafter assuming it (and STATING it) as if it were fact. In other words, she 
is attempting to establish her own opinion AS fact.'

 

 

---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.
 

 Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your dead pool implication. 
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.
 

 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.
 

 
 

---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 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Oddly enough, that quote (?) doesn't seem to appear in the archives. 

 Wherever you got it from, it would be interesting if you were able to refute 
what I wrote.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 What is past is past. Long live the present, an infinitesimal slice between a 
remembered then and an imaginary to be. But to resurrect a quote from the past: 

 'Judy is doing what she has done often before -- offering her opinion, and 
thereafter assuming it (and STATING it) as if it were fact. In other words, she 
is attempting to establish her own opinion AS fact.'

 

 

---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.
 

 Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your dead pool implication. 
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.
 

 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.
 

 
 

---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 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.
 

 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.
 

---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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]


 ---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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-20 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.
 

 Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your dead pool implication. 
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.
 

 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.
 

 
 

---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 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Getting your buttons hammered is a test of equanimity, which fails miserably 
with many, many meditators. Tuquoiseb was pretty intense this way, but also 
posted well reasoned posts and other interesting things. He was not a one note 
guy. I found authfriend just as annoying eventually as I did Turq in the 
beginning. Unlike the irrelevant posts of 'R' and the rather insanely abusive 
posts of another 'R' a few years ago. In fact those two 'Rs' were the only ones 
I would have removed from FFL myself were I in control. There was a third 'R' 
whom I found rather creepy, but he had reasoned if sometimes devious 
argumentation, so even though I did not care for him, I would not have removed 
him because I disagreed with him. Turq provided a strong pole for the 
non-theistic path of spirituality, and I miss the authfriend/turq battles of 
the past. Intellectually Turq is far more well rounded than our farmer turned 
tyrant, who I feel does not have the mental flexibility to deal with strong 
contrary views. His own posting has been spammy in mostly non-interactive, and 
until now, mostly a complaint. 

 We should note that personal attacks also do not necessarily involve profanity 
and can take on a much more subtle quality, and in this light everyone one here 
has engaged in that in my observation. It is very easy to slip from arguing 
against an idea and aiming at the person. Our moderator seems to have had a 
personal enmity against Turq and others opposed to his medieval religious 
persona. I for one vote for removing him as moderator.
 

 Also not all personal attacks here are gratuitous. What do you say if you are 
arguing against a point you regard as stupid? That implies the person holding 
that view is also stupid because they are holding it. And the converse is true, 
the person hold that stupid belief thinks it is true and holds the other in 
contempt for disagreeing, thinking it is stupid. Likes and dislikes have 
nothing to do with truth. Truth transcends even the gods, or however many you 
are pretending there are (the range is 0 or more).
 

 If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they 
do not want to hear.
 —George Orwell
 

 If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like 
sheep to the slaughter. 
 —George Washington
 

 Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid 
shit.
 —Jim C. Hines
 

 Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of 
opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of 
increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all 
its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
 —Harry S. Truman
 

 My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended 
against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone 
who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.
 —Christopher Hitchens
 

 I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the 
people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent 
and sudden usurpations.
 —James Madison
 

 Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to 
conscience, above all liberties.
 —John Milton
 

 Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for 
the stuff you do like, you've already lost.
 —Neil Gaiman
 

 If there's one American belief I hold above all others, it's that those who 
would set themselves up in judgment on matters of what is right and what is 
best should be given no rest; that they should have to defend their behavior 
most stringently. ... As a nation, we've been through too many fights to 
preserve our rights of free thought to let them go just because some prude with 
a highlighter doesn't approve of them.
 —Stephen King
 

 Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all 
subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us 
 The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too 
had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of 
orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained 
speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty.
 —William O. Douglas
 

 Most people do not really want others to have freedom of speech, they just 
want others to be given the freedom to say want they want to hear. 
 —Mokokoma Mokhonoana
 

 Religion grants its adherents malign, intoxicating and morally corrosive 
sensations. Destroying intellectual freedom is always evil, but only religion 
makes doing evil feel quite so good. 
 —Philip Pullman
 

 It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say 
what one thinks. 
 —Tacitus
 

 The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it's a religious 
belief system or a secular

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.
 

 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.
 

 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?
 

 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.
 

 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 tried to suppress others' opinions or 
ideas, nobody has censored anything.
 

 And your final paragraph is gratuitously insulting to Doug.
 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 Getting your buttons hammered is a test of equanimity, which fails miserably 
with many, many meditators. Tuquoiseb was pretty intense this way, but also 
posted well reasoned posts and other interesting things. He was not a one note 
guy. I found authfriend just as annoying eventually as I did Turq in the 
beginning. Unlike the irrelevant posts of 'R' and the rather insanely abusive 
posts of another 'R' a few years ago. In fact those two 'Rs' were the only ones 
I would have removed from FFL myself were I in control. There was a third 'R' 
whom I found rather creepy, but he had reasoned if sometimes devious 
argumentation, so even though I did not care for him, I would not have removed 
him because I disagreed with him. Turq provided a strong pole for the 
non-theistic path of spirituality, and I miss the authfriend/turq battles of 
the past. Intellectually Turq is far more well rounded than our farmer turned 
tyrant, who I feel does not have the mental flexibility to deal with strong 
contrary views. His own posting has been spammy in mostly non-interactive, and 
until now, mostly a complaint. 

 We should note that personal attacks also do not necessarily involve profanity 
and can take on a much more subtle quality, and in this light everyone one here 
has engaged in that in my observation. It is very easy to slip from arguing 
against an idea and aiming at the person. Our moderator seems to have had a 
personal enmity against Turq and others opposed to his medieval religious 
persona. I for one vote for removing him as moderator.
 

 Also not all personal attacks here are gratuitous. What do you say if you are 
arguing against a point you regard as stupid? That implies the person holding 
that view is also stupid because they are holding it. And the converse is true, 
the person hold that stupid belief thinks it is true and holds the other in 
contempt for disagreeing, thinking it is stupid. Likes and dislikes have 
nothing to do with truth. Truth transcends even the gods, or however many you 
are pretending there are (the range is 0 or more).
 

 If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they 
do not want to hear.
 —George Orwell
 

 If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like 
sheep to the slaughter. 
 —George Washington
 

 Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid 
shit.
 —Jim C. Hines
 

 Once a government is

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Yes, this pushing of one's buttons is certainly a useful tool. 

 But, at the risk of sounding too altruistic, why are here?
 

 I would say to discuss things, challenge one another, and yes, push one 
another's buttons.
 

 But, if it (this pushing of buttons) is done in a malicious manner, with no to 
other intent than to get a rise out of people, then I don't see any value in 
that.
 

 Correct me if I am wrong, but you have stated that the pushing of one's 
buttons is a useful exercise under any circumstances.
 

 You have also said, that  you have a hint of sociopath, so perhaps from that 
perspective it makes sense.
 

 For the sake of full disclosure, I've got plenty of my own issues, so I don't 
fault you for owning up to one of yours.
 

 And, I will agree that all personal attacks are not gratuitous.
 

 But in the case of the individual in question, we are talking about a decades 
long assault along these lines, and after a while it just becomes rather 
sickening.  At least as I see it.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 Getting your buttons hammered is a test of equanimity, which fails miserably 
with many, many meditators. Tuquoiseb was pretty intense this way, but also 
posted well reasoned posts and other interesting things. He was not a one note 
guy. I found authfriend just as annoying eventually as I did Turq in the 
beginning. Unlike the irrelevant posts of 'R' and the rather insanely abusive 
posts of another 'R' a few years ago. In fact those two 'Rs' were the only ones 
I would have removed from FFL myself were I in control. There was a third 'R' 
whom I found rather creepy, but he had reasoned if sometimes devious 
argumentation, so even though I did not care for him, I would not have removed 
him because I disagreed with him. Turq provided a strong pole for the 
non-theistic path of spirituality, and I miss the authfriend/turq battles of 
the past. Intellectually Turq is far more well rounded than our farmer turned 
tyrant, who I feel does not have the mental flexibility to deal with strong 
contrary views. His own posting has been spammy in mostly non-interactive, and 
until now, mostly a complaint. 

 We should note that personal attacks also do not necessarily involve profanity 
and can take on a much more subtle quality, and in this light everyone one here 
has engaged in that in my observation. It is very easy to slip from arguing 
against an idea and aiming at the person. Our moderator seems to have had a 
personal enmity against Turq and others opposed to his medieval religious 
persona. I for one vote for removing him as moderator.
 

 Also not all personal attacks here are gratuitous. What do you say if you are 
arguing against a point you regard as stupid? That implies the person holding 
that view is also stupid because they are holding it. And the converse is true, 
the person hold that stupid belief thinks it is true and holds the other in 
contempt for disagreeing, thinking it is stupid. Likes and dislikes have 
nothing to do with truth. Truth transcends even the gods, or however many you 
are pretending there are (the range is 0 or more).
 

 If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they 
do not want to hear.
 —George Orwell
 

 If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like 
sheep to the slaughter. 
 —George Washington
 

 Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid 
shit.
 —Jim C. Hines
 

 Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of 
opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of 
increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all 
its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
 —Harry S. Truman
 

 My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended 
against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone 
who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.
 —Christopher Hitchens
 

 I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the 
people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent 
and sudden usurpations.
 —James Madison
 

 Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to 
conscience, above all liberties.
 —John Milton
 

 Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for 
the stuff you do like, you've already lost.
 —Neil Gaiman
 

 If there's one American belief I hold above all others, it's that those who 
would set themselves up in judgment on matters of what is right and what is 
best should be given no rest; that they should have to defend their behavior 
most stringently. ... As a nation, we've been through too many fights to 
preserve our rights of free thought to let them go just because some prude with 
a highlighter doesn't approve of them.
 —Stephen King

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

This is interesting, because in arguing with authfriend, I would say something, 
and she would interpret it differently than I meant, and she would say 
something similar. I am not sure the misrepresentation is necessarily 
deliberate, but think that sometimes, maybe frequently, the world views of each 
prevent us from honing in on what the person is really thinking; we don't know 
what they are thinking, but interpret what they say through our own filter. The 
mismatch for me is greatest with authfriend. Some people deliberately seem to 
skew the argument that way, but I am not convinced it is always deliberate. We 
do not actually have more than one world view, and are probably not aware of 
its extent. A combination of hard wiring, software, and some soft wiring. When 
we encounter another world view, it seems strange and 'wrong', something askew 
— but our own, it always seem 'right'.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 

 

 Funny you use the example of a physical fight.  What I think is the feeling 
here, is that many of us come expecting a knife fight, only to find that others 
have come loaded for bear.  In other words, you think you are engaging in 
honest dialog, albeit with an edge, and then you find yourself being 
misrepresented.  But here we come back do our original conundrum: Are we really 
being misrepresented, or is just our ox being gored.
 

 Is it real, or is it Memorex.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

But, at the risk of sounding too altruistic, why are here?  This here is 
probably a better question than the one you probably intended to type. If you 
have the answer to the question 'why am I experiencing?' or 'Why is there 
experience at all?' in the largest sense, you will have the solution to many of 
life's problems.

 

 Well, at the moment, I am focused on this issue. I will have to ponder those 
larger questions at another time.  I also don't have the mental stamina at the 
moment.  Perhaps after a good night sleep, sleeping in a little, I might be up 
to it.
 

 But, if it (this pushing of buttons) is done in a malicious manner, with no to 
other intent than to get a rise out of people, then I don't see any value in 
that. Who determines whether content is malicious? Some thought Turq's content 
was malicious, some thought authfriend's content malicious, some thought 
Serious's content malicious, some thought fleetwood's content malicious. 
Sometimes I think a certain posters' content is malicious, but this is in 
disagreement with what others think about that same content and vice versa. 
When beliefs are challenged, a person often feels it is their person that is 
being attacked.

 

 Well, of course.  If loves makes the world go round, the above makes FFL go 
round.  There is no objective way to determine if content is malicious, or 
just too uncomfortable for someone's tastes, or beliefs.  Perhaps the only 
guidance I can offer on this is that the primary poster in question, has been 
called out by most everyone on this forum for trolling tactics, and for going 
for the reaction, for the purposes of getting a, well, reaction
 

 Again, you may endorse this program, but I would say it is a poor way to 
communicate.
 

 Buttons may get pushed under any circumstances, but attempting to push buttons 
can at times be a disaster in certain circumstances. But on a spiritual forum, 
which may occasionally discuss spirituality, in which the individual level of 
life is supposedly being subsumed by a universal value, wanting to be protected 
from button pushing is tantamount to admitting you do not want your 
individuality to step aside in favour of that universality. I have always liked 
the Catholic priest Anthony de Mello's definition of enlightenment: 'absolute 
cooperation with the inevitable.' This expresses the relationship of 
individuality to universality. Another way to say this is take it as it comes, 
maybe you heard that somewhere. But it is more interesting when the idea is 
applied to one's entire life and the universe and not just in meditation. The 
'handling' of a mantra in meditation is just a small scale foreshadowing of 
what one must accommodate later on.

 

 Thank you for expanding on this theme, with an interesting aside.  I think my 
comments above pertain to some of this.
 

 Sociopathic tendencies make for a slightly less personal sense of self than a 
lot of people have, but small scale individuality is not absent, just less well 
defined. In some cases that is an advantage, and in some cases, not.

 

 Thanks for the clarification.  What I mean is that a relentless pushing of 
buttons, may be a recipe for progress according to some philosophies.  I must 
sound like a prude by insisting, or at least asking, that if one chooses this 
means of instruction, it would be desirable to have an intent for insight, as 
opposed to something more petty. But, as you say, who's to judge which is 
which.  I, of course have my own opinion about the intent of some posters here.
 

 

 And, I will agree that all personal attacks are not gratuitous. Not always 
gratuitous. But if a gratuitous attack comes, take it as it comes, you can 
respond more rationally if you can train your individuality to not take 
offence, and this helps wear down those buttons. And if you do not take 
offence, or get angry, you can formulate a more effective response. I am 
talking of verbal altercation on a group, not a knife attack in an alley by a 
pack of goons. On a group, the fight or flight response is not useful because 
there is usually no real danger to the person part of what we think we are, 
though there have been a few issues with identity and careers here, which is 
one of the few substantial reasons for getting kicked off of here as it affects 
a person's livelihood.

 

 Funny you use the example of a physical fight.  What I think is the feeling 
here, is that many of us come expecting a knife fight, only to find that others 
have come loaded for bear.  In other words, you think you are engaging in 
honest dialog, albeit with an edge, and then you find yourself being 
misrepresented.  But here we come back do our original conundrum: Are we really 
being misrepresented, or is just our ox being gored.
 

 Is it real, or is it Memorex.
 

  Maybe you need some stomach exercises. There are things on this Earth that 
are far, far more horrendous than anything that happens on FFL. I found Turq

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread salyavin808


 LOL, looks like Judy hasn't been paying attention either.
 

 Unless I missed the post where Buck apologised to everyone for his blatant 
abuse of power and promised not to do it again because he wormed a post about 
David Lynch into his guidelines and tried to have it removed because he 
disliked the content and then deleted the poster anyway. Don't tell me you 
don't know what partisan means either!!!
 

 Don't worry Judy, we'll defend your right to post here with just as much 
vigour if you ever find you have something to say.
 

 

---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.
 

 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.
 

 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?
 

 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.
 

 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 tried to suppress others' opinions or 
ideas, nobody has censored anything.
 

 And your final paragraph is gratuitously insulting to Doug.
 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :

 Getting your buttons hammered is a test of equanimity, which fails miserably 
with many, many meditators. Tuquoiseb was pretty intense this way, but also 
posted well reasoned posts and other interesting things. He was not a one note 
guy. I found authfriend just as annoying eventually as I did Turq in the 
beginning. Unlike the irrelevant posts of 'R' and the rather insanely abusive 
posts of another 'R' a few years ago. In fact those two 'Rs' were the only ones 
I would have removed from FFL myself were I in control. There was a third 'R' 
whom I found rather creepy, but he had reasoned if sometimes devious 
argumentation, so even though I did not care for him, I would not have removed 
him because I disagreed with him. Turq provided a strong pole for the 
non-theistic path of spirituality, and I miss the authfriend/turq battles of 
the past. Intellectually Turq is far more well rounded than our farmer turned 
tyrant, who I feel does not have the mental flexibility to deal with strong 
contrary views. His own posting has been spammy in mostly non-interactive, and 
until now, mostly a complaint. 

 We should note that personal attacks also do not necessarily involve profanity 
and can take on a much more subtle quality, and in this light everyone one here 
has engaged in that in my observation. It is very easy to slip from arguing 
against an idea and aiming at the person. Our moderator seems to have had a 
personal enmity against Turq and others opposed to his medieval religious 
persona. I for one vote for removing him as moderator.
 

 Also not all personal attacks here are gratuitous. What do you say if you are 
arguing against a point you regard as stupid? That implies the person holding 
that view is also stupid because they are holding it. And the converse is true, 
the person hold that stupid belief thinks it is true

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

---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 guess, Curtis, we all have a bar, above, or below which ,we consider
respect, or disrespect..

If you consider the self described pushing of people's buttons solely to get
a reaction, respect, then that is where you have set the bar.

If you consider objecting to being misrepresented in a willful manner,
respect, then that's where you've set the bar.

We all get the value in discussing opposing ideas. We all get the value in
being challenged.

What some of us object to, is when the challenging, or discussing, takes a
malicious turn.

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.

And, again, Curtis, what is to prevent you, or others, from creating a
discussion venue tailored to the tastes and predilections of a certain group of
participants. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

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 :

---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.

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:

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?

2015-06-19 Thread Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Our new moderator is a dipshit vedic nazi and a partisan moronDoug for being a
snivelling coward
All insults that give grounds for your very own dismissal Sal!
And here I thought I would be the first to go - I reckon Bucky wants to keep
tabs on me so he will know where to direct the drones.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 8:44 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum
for me?

---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 he explicitly said:
Inmoderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state ofevolution” and
I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and notone is on moderation
in any way from this point. I would only suggestin our going forward that folks
take the time to actually read theYahoo-groups guidelines if they want to
continue fluidly posting onFFL. 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.

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...

It really won't be the same without you old chap. Our new moderator is a
dipshit vedic nazi and a partisan moron who has thrown out one of the most
innovative and dynamic posters here in his all consuming quest for uniform
blandness.
Why Rick would leave the rights to who gets to post here down to him is beyond
me, complete disinterest I suppose. But I guess that somehow we'll have to try
and compensate for the inevitable gaping hole that your absence will leave
behind.
So cheers Barry for all the laughs, insights, wisdom, book recommendations,
movie reviews and the ongoing travelogue of your life and times. If only the
people who spent all day sitting in a dome with their eyes closed had so much
to say!
TTFN and all the very, very best.
Salyavin

PS Well done Doug for being a snivelling coward and not even daring to have a
discussion about post content with Barry on here. Seems to me that every
example you found to back up your decision was very poor indeed and stood up to
about two seconds of scrutiny. But that's not the point is it? It's all about
using the guidelines to further what YOU think this place should be about.
Shame you never read the home page...

#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857 -- #yiv2944085857ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2944085857
#yiv2944085857ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2944085857
#yiv2944085857ygrp-mkp #yiv2944085857hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857ygrp-mkp #yiv2944085857ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857ygrp-mkp .yiv2944085857ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857ygrp-mkp .yiv2944085857ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857ygrp-mkp .yiv2944085857ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2944085857ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2944085857
#yiv2944085857ygrp-sponsor #yiv2944085857ygrp-lc #yiv2944085857hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2944085857
#yiv2944085857ygrp-sponsor #yiv2944085857ygrp-lc .yiv2944085857ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2944085857
#yiv2944085857activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2944085857
#yiv2944085857activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2944085857
#yiv2944085857activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2944085857 #yiv2944085857activity span
.yiv2944085857underline

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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.

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:

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: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Here's what perplexes me. ( and I agree with your assessment, btw).

Barry and Sal and others claim what they want, all they really want, dear God
in heaven what they want, is unfettered conversation, dialog, and content.

But, I guess it must be writtens somewhere, FFL BY DIVINE DECREE SHALL BE THE
ONLY POSTING VENUE!

Let's be honest. What Barry does (by his own admission) is push people's
buttons.

Xeno is on record saying, to effect,

pushing buttons is noble endeavour, and the one pushing the buttons need not
even be honest in the act of pushing. Anyone taking offense to having their
buttons pushed, even if they are blatantly misrepresented, is just revealing
their own inadequacy and reactive mind.

so, why not start their own venue, (as xeno himself suggested might be the
solution)?

and, of course, we know why this would be. they'd have no satisfying targets.

and as you point out Feste, there was a time when the participants practiced
some modicum of discipline. But, really that went out the window many years
ago, which is why the forum is down to only a few active participants.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

---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.

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:

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: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

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 :

---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.

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:

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: Fw: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?

2015-06-19 Thread feste37