Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

salyavin, in the movie of the same name, Lucy says time is the basis of 
reality. Meaning that if something is traveling faster than the speed of light, 
it basically doesn't exist! Of course, this is not a documentary, but fabulous 
nonetheless about time and evolution and human development. I'm obviously on a 
Lucy kick today. (-: 

  From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 7:32 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents
   
    


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

salyavin, I think the key phrase in your response is what you say about 
inferred knowledge, that it lacks the data to demonstrate. I'd agree that it 
lacks the data to demonstrate that it's more than just a meaning given by 
humans. But I think I've driveled something similar before. (-:
Yep, that is indeed the point. We must be careful what definitions we ascribe 
to experiences. to the world as revealed by our eyes and ears, it's really hard 
to know what is going on just from looking at something as we see so little of 
it.
It takes clever experiment to work things out that aren't immediately available 
and the more data we get about everything the more the explanations have to 
grow to encompass it all. A decent model of consciousness will have to include 
spiritual experiences and why they impress us so much, but will it include a 
link to particle physics? I think the mystics are in dreamland on that one.   I 
don't mind dry and dusty at all.
  From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:13 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents
 
 


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

hi salyavin, glad you're still here. And now I'm really wishing you were here 
in Fairfield. Because you'd find many folks who like you find dinosaurs 
spiritual. Or birds or trees or even plastic bags! This is what I've been 
trying to convey to you and Curtis too. That many people here have grown beyond 
a bounded view of human development.  Based on their own experiences.

Now, the other topic I'd like to address, and this is my response to your post 
about evolution and science and at a deeper level, what is real.
Isn't the determination of what is "real" dependent upon when one takes the 
photo? IOW, considering the process during which a caterpillar becomes a 
butterfly, if we take the photo at a certain point in that process, we could 
say the caterpillar is gone. But is that real? Or said another way, is that the 
whole picture?
The trick is you have to be sure that you get as much of the picture before 
making statements about accuracy.
In the case of a butterfly it would be impossible to fathom it's life until you 
know all the stages but once you do it's impossible to think there is something 
else hiding undiscovered. Most aspects of life are the same, what else could 
there be to mankind in a real sense as opposed to us just making stuff up about 
funny trips we've had?
Spiritual is what things mean to us, not a reflection of any intrinsic value in 
nature. We infer that an inner experience is a profound understanding of nature 
but you can't have inferred knowledge, there is no such thing. It's just a 
guess based on what we want to be true, or lack the objectivity or data to 
demonstrate otherwise. Science is how we've learned not to fool ourselves. So 
I'm very wary of spiritual claims of knowledge gained through revelation.
With any experience I have, whether during TM or outside of it, I wonder, "Is 
this the whole picture?" And I think many of us long term TMers have come to 
realize that there is no static whole picture, that it is an ever unfolding 
experience of what it means to be a ever unfolding human in an ever unfolding 
universe.
Excellent. Rejecting the guru's teaching is a good first step. Just don't 
replace it with your own drivel ;-)
This experience makes one a scientist, but one who is full of wonder and joy 
about what is being observed. This is what I sense in you too and what makes me 
think you'd enjoy a visit to Fairfield. 

You say "but" I would say that science starts with a sense of wonder and more 
importantly, a desire to explain what we experience. The idea of the scientist 
as a dry and dusty individual with no sense of romance is way wide of the mark.
Just don't multiply entities unnecessarily (Occam's razor)
  From: salyavin808  wrote :

But it's the Funny Farm Lounge.  Weshould expect knee-jerk abusive and often 
obscene ranting from theinmates.  I just don't want to see discussion narrowed 
to some"sheltered view of spirituality." 
Yup. "Spiritual" means different things to different people, it isn't just a 
term for airy-fairy daydreams about awakening into a sea of bliss. I find 
dinosaurs v

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[salyavin808]

 

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

 salyavin, I think the key phrase in your response is what you say about 
inferred knowledge, that it lacks the data to demonstrate. I'd agree that it 
lacks the data to demonstrate that it's more than just a meaning given by 
humans. But I think I've driveled something similar before. (-:
 

 Yep, that is indeed the point. We must be careful what definitions we ascribe 
to experiences. to the world as revealed by our eyes and ears, it's really hard 
to know what is going on just from looking at something as we see so little of 
it.
 

 It takes clever experiment to work things out that aren't immediately 
available and the more data we get about everything the more the explanations 
have to grow to encompass it all. A decent model of consciousness will have to 
include spiritual experiences and why they impress us so much, but will it 
include a link to particle physics? I think the mystics are in dreamland on 
that one. 
   
 
 I don't mind dry and dusty at all.

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:13 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents
 
 
   

 

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

 hi salyavin, glad you're still here. And now I'm really wishing you were here 
in Fairfield. Because you'd find many folks who like you find dinosaurs 
spiritual. Or birds or trees or even plastic bags! This is what I've been 
trying to convey to you and Curtis too. That many people here have grown beyond 
a bounded view of human development.  Based on their own experiences.

 

 Now, the other topic I'd like to address, and this is my response to your post 
about evolution and science and at a deeper level, what is real.
 

 Isn't the determination of what is "real" dependent upon when one takes the 
photo? IOW, considering the process during which a caterpillar becomes a 
butterfly, if we take the photo at a certain point in that process, we could 
say the caterpillar is gone. But is that real? Or said another way, is that the 
whole picture?
 

 The trick is you have to be sure that you get as much of the picture before 
making statements about accuracy.
 

 In the case of a butterfly it would be impossible to fathom it's life until 
you know all the stages but once you do it's impossible to think there is 
something else hiding undiscovered. Most aspects of life are the same, what 
else could there be to mankind in a real sense as opposed to us just making 
stuff up about funny trips we've had?
 

 Spiritual is what things mean to us, not a reflection of any intrinsic value 
in nature. We infer that an inner experience is a profound understanding of 
nature but you can't have inferred knowledge, there is no such thing. It's just 
a guess based on what we want to be true, or lack the objectivity or data to 
demonstrate otherwise. Science is how we've learned not to fool ourselves. So 
I'm very wary of spiritual claims of knowledge gained through revelation.
 

 With any experience I have, whether during TM or outside of it, I wonder, "Is 
this the whole picture?" And I think many of us long term TMers have come to 
realize that there is no static whole picture, that it is an ever unfolding 
experience of what it means to be a ever unfolding human in an ever unfolding 
universe.
 

 Excellent. Rejecting the guru's teaching is a good first step. Just don't 
replace it with your own drivel ;-)
 

 This experience makes one a scientist, but one who is full of wonder and joy 
about what is being observed. This is what I sense in you too and what makes me 
think you'd enjoy a visit to Fairfield. 

 

 You say "but" I would say that science starts with a sense of wonder and more 
importantly, a desire to explain what we experience. The idea of the scientist 
as a dry and dusty individual with no sense of romance is way wide of the mark.
 

 Just don't multiply entities unnecessarily (Occam's razor)
 

 From: salyavin808  wrote :

 But it's the Funny Farm Lounge.  We should expect knee-jerk abusive and often 
obscene ranting from the inmates.  I just don't want to see discussion narrowed 
to some "sheltered view of spirituality." 
 

 Yup. "Spiritual" means different things to different people, it isn't just a 
term for airy-fairy daydreams about awakening into a sea of bliss. I find 
dinosaurs very spiritual because thinking about the deep past and the sense of 
time passing and the unpredictable future of life gives me a sense of 
perspective in my day. A sense of place in the universe, and it's real.
 
 
 On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote:
 
   

 I'm mystified as to why you think that the alternative to having a moderated 
group as it is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" group. That

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

salyavin, I think the key phrase in your response is what you say about 
inferred knowledge, that it lacks the data to demonstrate. I'd agree that it 
lacks the data to demonstrate that it's more than just a meaning given by 
humans. But I think I've driveled something similar before. (-:  
I don't mind dry and dusty at all.
 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:13 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents
   
    


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

hi salyavin, glad you're still here. And now I'm really wishing you were here 
in Fairfield. Because you'd find many folks who like you find dinosaurs 
spiritual. Or birds or trees or even plastic bags! This is what I've been 
trying to convey to you and Curtis too. That many people here have grown beyond 
a bounded view of human development.  Based on their own experiences.

Now, the other topic I'd like to address, and this is my response to your post 
about evolution and science and at a deeper level, what is real.
Isn't the determination of what is "real" dependent upon when one takes the 
photo? IOW, considering the process during which a caterpillar becomes a 
butterfly, if we take the photo at a certain point in that process, we could 
say the caterpillar is gone. But is that real? Or said another way, is that the 
whole picture?
The trick is you have to be sure that you get as much of the picture before 
making statements about accuracy.
In the case of a butterfly it would be impossible to fathom it's life until you 
know all the stages but once you do it's impossible to think there is something 
else hiding undiscovered. Most aspects of life are the same, what else could 
there be to mankind in a real sense as opposed to us just making stuff up about 
funny trips we've had?
Spiritual is what things mean to us, not a reflection of any intrinsic value in 
nature. We infer that an inner experience is a profound understanding of nature 
but you can't have inferred knowledge, there is no such thing. It's just a 
guess based on what we want to be true, or lack the objectivity or data to 
demonstrate otherwise. Science is how we've learned not to fool ourselves. So 
I'm very wary of spiritual claims of knowledge gained through revelation.
With any experience I have, whether during TM or outside of it, I wonder, "Is 
this the whole picture?" And I think many of us long term TMers have come to 
realize that there is no static whole picture, that it is an ever unfolding 
experience of what it means to be a ever unfolding human in an ever unfolding 
universe.
Excellent. Rejecting the guru's teaching is a good first step. Just don't 
replace it with your own drivel ;-)
This experience makes one a scientist, but one who is full of wonder and joy 
about what is being observed. This is what I sense in you too and what makes me 
think you'd enjoy a visit to Fairfield. 

You say "but" I would say that science starts with a sense of wonder and more 
importantly, a desire to explain what we experience. The idea of the scientist 
as a dry and dusty individual with no sense of romance is way wide of the mark.
Just don't multiply entities unnecessarily (Occam's razor)
  From: salyavin808  wrote :

But it's the Funny Farm Lounge.  Weshould expect knee-jerk abusive and often 
obscene ranting from theinmates.  I just don't want to see discussion narrowed 
to some"sheltered view of spirituality." 
Yup. "Spiritual" means different things to different people, it isn't just a 
term for airy-fairy daydreams about awakening into a sea of bliss. I find 
dinosaurs very spiritual because thinking about the deep past and the sense of 
time passing and the unpredictable future of life gives me a sense of 
perspective in my day. A sense of place in the universe, and it's real.


 

 On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote:



  
I'm mystified as to why youthink that the alternative to having a moderated 
group asit is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" group.That's absurd. I am 
all for vigorous discussion, opposingpoints of view, and honest dialogue. I am 
against the kindof knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against 
allthings spiritual that went on here up until the last fewweeks.  And for all 
the abuse Doug has taken, one wouldhardly realize that he has been a good 
exponent of exactlywhat you are calling for in your post: a discussion of"where 
things have gone" in the TMO and where they aregoing. Many of his comments and 
insights over the last fewyears have been very astute. 

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

As faras I'm concerned Rick set the"community standards" as he defines it on 
the headerfor thegroup.  If you don't like them then start yet anoth

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[ultrarishi]

"I'm Spartacus"!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[salyavin808]

 

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

 hi salyavin, glad you're still here. And now I'm really wishing you were here 
in Fairfield. Because you'd find many folks who like you find dinosaurs 
spiritual. Or birds or trees or even plastic bags! This is what I've been 
trying to convey to you and Curtis too. That many people here have grown beyond 
a bounded view of human development.  Based on their own experiences.

 

 Now, the other topic I'd like to address, and this is my response to your post 
about evolution and science and at a deeper level, what is real.
 

 Isn't the determination of what is "real" dependent upon when one takes the 
photo? IOW, considering the process during which a caterpillar becomes a 
butterfly, if we take the photo at a certain point in that process, we could 
say the caterpillar is gone. But is that real? Or said another way, is that the 
whole picture?
 

 The trick is you have to be sure that you get as much of the picture before 
making statements about accuracy.
 

 In the case of a butterfly it would be impossible to fathom it's life until 
you know all the stages but once you do it's impossible to think there is 
something else hiding undiscovered. Most aspects of life are the same, what 
else could there be to mankind in a real sense as opposed to us just making 
stuff up about funny trips we've had?
 

 Spiritual is what things mean to us, not a reflection of any intrinsic value 
in nature. We infer that an inner experience is a profound understanding of 
nature but you can't have inferred knowledge, there is no such thing. It's just 
a guess based on what we want to be true, or lack the objectivity or data to 
demonstrate otherwise. Science is how we've learned not to fool ourselves. So 
I'm very wary of spiritual claims of knowledge gained through revelation.
 

 With any experience I have, whether during TM or outside of it, I wonder, "Is 
this the whole picture?" And I think many of us long term TMers have come to 
realize that there is no static whole picture, that it is an ever unfolding 
experience of what it means to be a ever unfolding human in an ever unfolding 
universe.
 

 Excellent. Rejecting the guru's teaching is a good first step. Just don't 
replace it with your own drivel ;-)
 

 This experience makes one a scientist, but one who is full of wonder and joy 
about what is being observed. This is what I sense in you too and what makes me 
think you'd enjoy a visit to Fairfield. 

 

 You say "but" I would say that science starts with a sense of wonder and more 
importantly, a desire to explain what we experience. The idea of the scientist 
as a dry and dusty individual with no sense of romance is way wide of the mark.
 

 Just don't multiply entities unnecessarily (Occam's razor)
 

 From: salyavin808  wrote :

 But it's the Funny Farm Lounge.  We should expect knee-jerk abusive and often 
obscene ranting from the inmates.  I just don't want to see discussion narrowed 
to some "sheltered view of spirituality." 
 

 Yup. "Spiritual" means different things to different people, it isn't just a 
term for airy-fairy daydreams about awakening into a sea of bliss. I find 
dinosaurs very spiritual because thinking about the deep past and the sense of 
time passing and the unpredictable future of life gives me a sense of 
perspective in my day. A sense of place in the universe, and it's real.
 
 
 On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote:
 
   

 I'm mystified as to why you think that the alternative to having a moderated 
group as it is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" group. That's absurd. I 
am all for vigorous discussion, opposing points of view, and honest dialogue. I 
am against the kind of knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against all 
things spiritual that went on here up until the last few weeks.  And for all 
the abuse Doug has taken, one would hardly realize that he has been a good 
exponent of exactly what you are calling for in your post: a discussion of 
"where things have gone" in the TMO and where they are going. Many of his 
comments and insights over the last few years have been very astute. 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 As far as I'm concerned Rick set the "community standards" as he defines it on 
the header for the group.  If you don't like them then start yet another bliss 
ninny group.  Those seem to be extremely popular and long lived. :-D 
 
 I've been online since the early 1980s.  I've seen many a BBS come and go.  
I've seen heavy handed moderators come and go too.  Seems that late comers have 
a creepy idea of what moderation is about.
 
 TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcus prices.  it was better 
when it wasn't so pretentious but then most people didn't know that much about 
yoga back then.  We've come a long ways.  This is a good forum to discuss where 
things have gone even if it riles TBs.
 
 On 07/07/2015 1

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

I stand with Alex on this.  I've had a Yahoo Group to moderate which I 
closed when it was no longer necessary.  Subscribers are on their own 
with regard to privacy. So choose handles that don't reveal your 
identity.  I'm on Yahoo Groups using several emails, some which give my 
name and others like this one that are a "handle".


We have a bunch of tech newbies who don't like anonymity and want 
everyone to post under their real name.  My response to their stupidity 
is "which John Smith" am I? :)



On 07/08/2015 09:06 AM, j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Curtis, there was nothing for me to help with. There is no rule on FFL 
about search engine rankings. It looked to me like you were wanting a 
weird tangential enforcement of the anonymity rules, but you are not 
anonymous. When Nabby's anonymity was being violated, I took care of 
the situation because it was a clear violation of the rules. You went 
to Rick, and he gave you your own special rule and enforced it 
accordingly. I don't have a problem with that because it's Rick's 
group, and he can do as he pleases. For situations like yours, Rick is 
the one to go to, and it was appropriate that you dealt directly with 
him. The only fallout for me is that I handle subscriptions, and I'm 
now burdened with having to look out for a miscreant trying to sneak 
back in.



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

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


If you're so concerned about your search engine rankings, why did you 
choose to make them vulnerable to being messed with by directly tying 
your business identity to FFL?


Me: My concerns developed long after I had chosen a name which was 
purposely not my stage name. It did not originally link with anything 
except this site. That is still true except Google now prompts if you 
mean my name broken up. Since no one would search me on the name I 
used here it was not a problem for years. And casual references don't 
jack up rankings, it is repeated references in a short period of time 
that spike the relevance. I never complained about people saying 
shitty things about me, only when they got focused on hurting me and 
put in the effort.


I did not know when! I started posting that I would run into some of 
the characters who pulled the shit they did. I was not working in 
schools and under the kind of scrutiny that I am under today. Much has 
changed in how people search about people casually, so it became a 
problem over time.If I had a time machine and knew now what I knew 
then I would have been more careful about sharing anything here.


Alex:
If you were curtis_ex_tm or something like that, you probably wouldn't 
have had the problem with R,


Me: My name here is not a problem, it is not a natural search. It was 
the behavior that I already explained that caused the search engine 
problem. As I explained I am not anonymous on the web. But after I 
asked two people to stop jacking the search engine rankings linking me 
here they ramped it up until they were stopped. It was a very specific 
and unnatural behavior I objected to.


 Me: and Rick and I wouldn't have to deal with R's continuing 
annoyance behind the scenes.


Me: So his craziness is my fault? Sorry but I am not owning that.

Alex:In not protecting your own interests, you've made yourself a 
burden on others.


Me: Your disinterest in helping me with this situation was clear back 
then and is clear now.





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

I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I 
brought them to number one in their category. Recent postings of a 
name pumps up the relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining 
about my name being used repeatedly, I could track how it was 
affecting the search engines.


The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines 
or trying to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some 
research, find my real name and connect my contributions over the 
decades on the web. It was about trying to keep recent links off so 
that the relevancy of conne! ction gets drowned by recent contributions.


The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance 
about how I show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge 
of how search engines work to get relief from the people trying to 
torpedo me and I am glad he had that background to understand my 
concerns.


So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the 
last R used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both 
Vaj and I were concerned with. It is the casual search that we are 
concerned with, not an in depth investigative profile of our history 
on the Web. And for that recent and multiples are the way to skew the 
search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they are in flux. Protecting 
myself online is about what happens now, not in the past. And for the 
record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Given the tools you had, your perspective on your role here, and your 
explanation about anonymity, I can understand your position better Alex. 

Since you are now dealing with the level of computer sophistication and crazy 
that was aimed at F'ing me, and my own explanation of my perspective on it, I 
hope you can understand mine better.

Given the sad state of what has gone on with Mr. From-The Dome, I appreciate 
your hands off moderation style all the more, so thanks for your service to 
FFL. I also get your point about Rick being the right person to deal with the 
issue, so I apologize for implying that you could have helped but didn't. I am 
a sadder but wiser Web user from this whole FFL experience. The level of malice 
for no reason from a few exceeded my most cynical expectations.

I believe your move to create a Buck-free zone will either put the final nail 
in the FFL coffin or force Rick to decide what kind of site he wants here. Nice 
move. It doesn't sound to me that you have been dealt with too fairly here 
considering the time you have put in serving this cyber community.
 

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

 Curtis, there was nothing for me to help with. There is no rule on FFL about 
search engine rankings. It looked to me like you were wanting a weird 
tangential enforcement of the anonymity rules, but you are not anonymous. When 
Nabby's anonymity was being violated, I took care of the situation because it 
was a clear violation of the rules. You went to Rick, and he gave you your own 
special rule and enforced it accordingly. I don't have a problem with that 
because it's Rick's group, and he can do as he pleases. For situations like 
yours, Rick is the one to go to, and it was appropriate that you dealt directly 
with him. The only fallout for me is that I handle subscriptions, and I'm now 
burdened with having to look out for a miscreant trying to sneak back in.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 
 If you're so concerned about your search engine rankings, why did you choose 
to make them vulnerable to being messed with by directly tying your business 
identity to FFL? 

Me: My concerns developed long after I had chosen a name which was purposely 
not my stage name. It did not originally link with anything except this site. 
That is still true except Google now prompts if you mean my name broken up. 
Since no one would search me on the name I used here it was not a problem for 
years. And casual references don't jack up rankings, it is repeated references 
in a short period of time that spike the relevance. I never complained about 
people saying shitty things about me, only when they got focused on hurting me 
and put in the effort.

I did not know when I started posting that I would run into some of the 
characters who pulled the shit they did. I was not working in schools and under 
the kind of scrutiny that I am under today. Much has changed in how people 
search about people casually, so it became a problem over time.If I had a time 
machine and knew now what I knew then I would have been more careful about 
sharing anything here. 

Alex:
If you were curtis_ex_tm or something like that, you probably wouldn't have had 
the problem with R,

Me: My name here is not a problem, it is not a natural search. It was the 
behavior that I already explained that caused the search engine problem. As I 
explained I am not anonymous on the web. But after I asked two people to stop 
jacking the search engine rankings linking me here they ramped it up until they 
were stopped. It was a very specific and unnatural behavior I objected to. 

 Me: and Rick and I wouldn't have to deal with R's continuing annoyance behind 
the scenes. 

Me: So his craziness is my fault? Sorry but I am not owning that. 

Alex:In not protecting your own interests, you've made yourself a burden on 
others.

Me: Your disinterest in helping me with this situation was clear back then and 
is clear now. 




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

 I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them 
to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the 
relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used 
repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines.

The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying 
to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real 
name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about 
trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets 
drowned by recent contributions.

The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I 
show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search 
engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad 
he had that background to understand 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Curtis, there was nothing for me to help with. There is no rule on FFL about 
search engine rankings. It looked to me like you were wanting a weird 
tangential enforcement of the anonymity rules, but you are not anonymous. When 
Nabby's anonymity was being violated, I took care of the situation because it 
was a clear violation of the rules. You went to Rick, and he gave you your own 
special rule and enforced it accordingly. I don't have a problem with that 
because it's Rick's group, and he can do as he pleases. For situations like 
yours, Rick is the one to go to, and it was appropriate that you dealt directly 
with him. The only fallout for me is that I handle subscriptions, and I'm now 
burdened with having to look out for a miscreant trying to sneak back in.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 
 If you're so concerned about your search engine rankings, why did you choose 
to make them vulnerable to being messed with by directly tying your business 
identity to FFL? 

Me: My concerns developed long after I had chosen a name which was purposely 
not my stage name. It did not originally link with anything except this site. 
That is still true except Google now prompts if you mean my name broken up. 
Since no one would search me on the name I used here it was not a problem for 
years. And casual references don't jack up rankings, it is repeated references 
in a short period of time that spike the relevance. I never complained about 
people saying shitty things about me, only when they got focused on hurting me 
and put in the effort.

I did not know when I started posting that I would run into some of the 
characters who pulled the shit they did. I was not working in schools and under 
the kind of scrutiny that I am under today. Much has changed in how people 
search about people casually, so it became a problem over time.If I had a time 
machine and knew now what I knew then I would have been more careful about 
sharing anything here. 

Alex:
If you were curtis_ex_tm or something like that, you probably wouldn't have had 
the problem with R,

Me: My name here is not a problem, it is not a natural search. It was the 
behavior that I already explained that caused the search engine problem. As I 
explained I am not anonymous on the web. But after I asked two people to stop 
jacking the search engine rankings linking me here they ramped it up until they 
were stopped. It was a very specific and unnatural behavior I objected to. 

 Me: and Rick and I wouldn't have to deal with R's continuing annoyance behind 
the scenes. 

Me: So his craziness is my fault? Sorry but I am not owning that. 

Alex:In not protecting your own interests, you've made yourself a burden on 
others.

Me: Your disinterest in helping me with this situation was clear back then and 
is clear now. 




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

 I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them 
to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the 
relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used 
repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines.

The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying 
to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real 
name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about 
trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets 
drowned by recent contributions.

The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I 
show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search 
engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad 
he had that background to understand my concerns. 

So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the last R 
used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both Vaj and I were 
concerned with. It is the casual search that we are concerned with, not an in 
depth investigative profile of our history on the Web. And for that recent and 
multiples are the way to skew the search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they 
are in flux. Protecting myself online is about what happens now, not in the 
past. And for the record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday on the 
Web since then and he has respected my request.




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

 With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you 
either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the 
situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. 
A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the 
very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, 
including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way 
shape or form even 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

hi salyavin, glad you're still here. And now I'm really wishing you were here 
in Fairfield. Because you'd find many folks who like you find dinosaurs 
spiritual. Or birds or trees or even plastic bags! This is what I've been 
trying to convey to you and Curtis too. That many people here have grown beyond 
a bounded view of human development.  Based on their own experiences.

Now, the other topic I'd like to address, and this is my response to your post 
about evolution and science and at a deeper level, what is real.
Isn't the determination of what is "real" dependent upon when one takes the 
photo? IOW, considering the process during which a caterpillar becomes a 
butterfly, if we take the photo at a certain point in that process, we could 
say the caterpillar is gone. But is that real? Or said another way, is that the 
whole picture?
With any experience I have, whether during TM or outside of it, I wonder, "Is 
this the whole picture?" And I think many of us long term TMers have come to 
realize that there is no static whole picture, that it is an ever unfolding 
experience of what it means to be a ever unfolding human in an ever unfolding 
universe.
This experience makes one a scientist, but one who is full of wonder and joy 
about what is being observed. This is what I sense in you too and what makes me 
think you'd enjoy a visit to Fairfield. 
  From: salyavin808  wrote :

But it's the Funny Farm Lounge.  Weshould expect knee-jerk abusive and often 
obscene ranting from theinmates.  I just don't want to see discussion narrowed 
to some"sheltered view of spirituality." 
Yup. "Spiritual" means different things to different people, it isn't just a 
term for airy-fairy daydreams about awakening into a sea of bliss. I find 
dinosaurs very spiritual because thinking about the deep past and the sense of 
time passing and the unpredictable future of life gives me a sense of 
perspective in my day. A sense of place in the universe, and it's real.



 On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote:


  
I'm mystified as to why youthink that the alternative to having a moderated 
group asit is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" group.That's absurd. I am 
all for vigorous discussion, opposingpoints of view, and honest dialogue. I am 
against the kindof knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against 
allthings spiritual that went on here up until the last fewweeks.  And for all 
the abuse Doug has taken, one wouldhardly realize that he has been a good 
exponent of exactlywhat you are calling for in your post: a discussion of"where 
things have gone" in the TMO and where they aregoing. Many of his comments and 
insights over the last fewyears have been very astute. 

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

As faras I'm concerned Rick set the"community standards" as he defines it on 
the headerfor thegroup.  If you don't like them then start yet anotherbliss 
ninnygroup.  Those seem to be extremely popular and longlived. :-D 

I've been online since the early 1980s.  I've seenmany a BBS comeand go.  I've 
seen heavy handed moderators come and gotoo.  Seemsthat late comers have a 
creepy idea of what moderationis about.

TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcusprices.  itwas better when 
it wasn't so pretentious but then mostpeopledidn't know that much about yoga 
back then.  We'vecome a longways.  This is a good forum to discuss where 
thingshave gone evenif it riles TBs.


 On 07/07/2015 11:38 AM,feste37 wrote:


  
Ithink it's part of whatmoderating is about. For example, I often read 
thecomments section in articles in the Guardian. Onerecentcomment got deleted, 
with the following message:

"This comment was removed by a moderator becauseit didn'tabide by our 
communitystandards. Replies may also be deleted." 


This is very common and I have no objection tosomethinglike it being 
implemented at FFL. 


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

Andthat'snot what "moderating" isabout. It's for extreme circumstances 
whichareusually rare.  Youshould never give moderation over to a 
techilliterate.  It justmakes them a laughing stock.

Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex YahooGroup. ;-) 


On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM,salyavin808 wrote:


  


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

It'sverysimple, Duv. Thereare now some community standards to 
beobservedwhenposting to this group. There is nothingremarkable aboutthat. It 
is long overdue. 
Rubbish, MJ got kicked fornothingthathasn't been said a million timesbefore, 
sowhat ifBuck decides it's suddenly beyond thepale tohave anopinion he doesn't 
like? That's all itis.Sheeropportunism and hide behind theguidelines. 
Wearen'tchildren for god's sake.

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

It'sonyouRICK ARCHER.  You have not even oncecomehere and explained why you are 
okaywithwhat Dougis doing here.

It's as if you said, "Let's fuck uptheplace andsee what comes out of the 
ashes." Did yousay that?

We don't know, and that's on you.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[dr_rc_racy]

Hello - calling  out to the owner of FFL Rick Archer to take notice of this 
egregious abuse of power by your moderator. 

 Let this witless, unintelligent, uninteresting, rustic, bovine, dork Doug be 
removed as the moderator and let Grandpa Xeno and Uncle MJ be re-instated ASAP 
!!
 

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

 It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.

It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?

We don't know, and that's on you.  

Why?  

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a decade. 
 We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're all 
adrift, you don't show up.

WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?

 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repetition.
 

 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion 
from the group for the contrived "offenses." 

 

 Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using 
names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him 
from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would 
challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made 
intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from 
that other guy with his finger on the trigger.
 

 Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like 
posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is 
a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was 
transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and 
I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as 
passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who 
used to fill in for that role was N.  But he was so far from mainstream 
movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with 
personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought 
he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned 
him just fine.
 

 FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and 
Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban 
had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative 
people, willing to put time into this site and create content makes this a 
valuable place to read

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[salyavin808]

 

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

 But it's the Funny Farm Lounge.  We should expect knee-jerk abusive and often 
obscene ranting from the inmates.  I just don't want to see discussion narrowed 
to some "sheltered view of spirituality." 
 

 Yup. "Spiritual" means different things to different people, it isn't just a 
term for airy-fairy daydreams about awakening into a sea of bliss. I find 
dinosaurs very spiritual because thinking about the deep past and the sense of 
time passing and the unpredictable future of life gives me a sense of 
perspective in my day. A sense of place in the universe, and it's real.
 
 
 On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote:
 
   

 I'm mystified as to why you think that the alternative to having a moderated 
group as it is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" group. That's absurd. I 
am all for vigorous discussion, opposing points of view, and honest dialogue. I 
am against the kind of knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against all 
things spiritual that went on here up until the last few weeks.  And for all 
the abuse Doug has taken, one would hardly realize that he has been a good 
exponent of exactly what you are calling for in your post: a discussion of 
"where things have gone" in the TMO and where they are going. Many of his 
comments and insights over the last few years have been very astute. 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 As far as I'm concerned Rick set the "community standards" as he defines it on 
the header for the group.  If you don't like them then start yet another bliss 
ninny group.  Those seem to be extremely popular and long lived. :-D 
 
 I've been online since the early 1980s.  I've seen many a BBS come and go.  
I've seen heavy handed moderators come and go too.  Seems that late comers have 
a creepy idea of what moderation is about.
 
 TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcus prices.  it was better 
when it wasn't so pretentious but then most people didn't know that much about 
yoga back then.  We've come a long ways.  This is a good forum to discuss where 
things have gone even if it riles TBs.
 
 On 07/07/2015 11:38 AM, feste37 wrote:
 
   

 I think it's part of what moderating is about. For example, I often read the 
comments section in articles in the Guardian. One recent comment got deleted, 
with the following message:
 
 "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our 
community standards. Replies may also be deleted." 
 
 
 This is very common and I have no objection to something like it being 
implemented at FFL. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme circumstances 
which are usually rare.  You should never give moderation over to a tech 
illiterate.  It just makes them a laughing stock.
 
 Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-) 
 
 On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be observed 
when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about that. It is long 
overdue. 
 

 Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million times 
before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale to have an 
opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer opportunism and hide behind 
the guidelines. We aren't children for god's sake.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.
 
 It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?
 
 We don't know, and that's on you.  
 
 Why?  
 
 We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a 
decade.  We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're 
all adrift, you don't show up.
 
 WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
 
 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 
 
 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 
 
 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 
 If you're so concerned about your search engine rankings, why did you choose 
to make them vulnerable to being messed with by directly tying your business 
identity to FFL? 

Me: My concerns developed long after I had chosen a name which was purposely 
not my stage name. It did not originally link with anything except this site. 
That is still true except Google now prompts if you mean my name broken up. 
Since no one would search me on the name I used here it was not a problem for 
years. And casual references don't jack up rankings, it is repeated references 
in a short period of time that spike the relevance. I never complained about 
people saying shitty things about me, only when they got focused on hurting me 
and put in the effort.

I did not know when I started posting that I would run into some of the 
characters who pulled the shit they did. I was not working in schools and under 
the kind of scrutiny that I am under today. Much has changed in how people 
search about people casually, so it became a problem over time.If I had a time 
machine and knew now what I knew then I would have been more careful about 
sharing anything here. 

Alex:
If you were curtis_ex_tm or something like that, you probably wouldn't have had 
the problem with R,

Me: My name here is not a problem, it is not a natural search. It was the 
behavior that I already explained that caused the search engine problem. As I 
explained I am not anonymous on the web. But after I asked two people to stop 
jacking the search engine rankings linking me here they ramped it up until they 
were stopped. It was a very specific and unnatural behavior I objected to. 

 Me: and Rick and I wouldn't have to deal with R's continuing annoyance behind 
the scenes. 

Me: So his craziness is my fault? Sorry but I am not owning that. 

Alex:In not protecting your own interests, you've made yourself a burden on 
others.

Me: Your disinterest in helping me with this situation was clear back then and 
is clear now. 




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

 I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them 
to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the 
relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used 
repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines.

The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying 
to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real 
name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about 
trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets 
drowned by recent contributions.

The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I 
show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search 
engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad 
he had that background to understand my concerns. 

So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the last R 
used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both Vaj and I were 
concerned with. It is the casual search that we are concerned with, not an in 
depth investigative profile of our history on the Web. And for that recent and 
multiples are the way to skew the search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they 
are in flux. Protecting myself online is about what happens now, not in the 
past. And for the record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday on the 
Web since then and he has respected my request.




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

 With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you 
either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the 
situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. 
A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the 
very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, 
including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way 
shape or form even remotely anonymous. Same deal with Vaj, who even signed his 
real name to his own posts and then later started throwing hissy-fits when his 
real name was used.

Wanna be anonymous on FFL? Create a username that is used only on FFL and that 
doesn't even hint at any other non-FFL identity. Do a Google search on 
salyavin808, Anartaxius, and Xenophaneros, and the only thing you'll turn up is 
links to FFL. That's how it's done.
 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believ

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 If you're so concerned about your search engine rankings, why did you choose 
to make them vulnerable to being messed with by directly tying your business 
identity to FFL? If you were curtis_ex_tm or something like that, you probably 
wouldn't have had the problem with R, and Rick and I wouldn't have to deal with 
R's continuing annoyance behind the scenes. In not protecting your own 
interests, you've made yourself a burden on others.

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

 I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them 
to number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the 
relevancy in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used 
repeatedly, I could track how it was affecting the search engines.

The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying 
to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real 
name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about 
trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets 
drowned by recent contributions.

The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I 
show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search 
engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad 
he had that background to understand my concerns. 

So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the last R 
used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both Vaj and I were 
concerned with. It is the casual search that we are concerned with, not an in 
depth investigative profile of our history on the Web. And for that recent and 
multiples are the way to skew the search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they 
are in flux. Protecting myself online is about what happens now, not in the 
past. And for the record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday on the 
Web since then and he has respected my request.




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

 With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you 
either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the 
situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. 
A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the 
very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, 
including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way 
shape or form even remotely anonymous. Same deal with Vaj, who even signed his 
real name to his own posts and then later started throwing hissy-fits when his 
real name was used.

Wanna be anonymous on FFL? Create a username that is used only on FFL and that 
doesn't even hint at any other non-FFL identity. Do a Google search on 
salyavin808, Anartaxius, and Xenophaneros, and the only thing you'll turn up is 
links to FFL. That's how it's done.
 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was afte

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be observed 
when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about that. It is long 
overdue. 
 

 I'll second that, heartily.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.

It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?

We don't know, and that's on you.  

Why?  

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a decade. 
 We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're all 
adrift, you don't show up.

WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?

 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repetition.
 

 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion 
from the group for the contrived "offenses." 

 

 Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using 
names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him 
from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would 
challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made 
intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from 
that other guy with his finger on the trigger.
 

 Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like 
posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is 
a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was 
transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and 
I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as 
passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who 
used to fill in for that role was N.  But he was so far from mainstream 
movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with 
personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought 
he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned 
him just fine.
 

 FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and 
Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban 
had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative 
people, willing to put time into this site and create content makes this a 
valuable place to read. Many of the people, who are behi

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

But it's the Funny Farm Lounge.  We should expect knee-jerk abusive and 
often obscene ranting from the inmates.  I just don't want to see 
discussion narrowed to some "sheltered view of spirituality."



On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote:



I'm mystified as to why you think that the alternative to having a 
moderated group as it is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" 
group. That's absurd. I am all for vigorous discussion, opposing 
points of view, and honest dialogue. I am against the kind of 
knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against all things 
spiritual that went on here up until the last few weeks.  And for all 
the abuse Doug has taken, one would hardly realize that he has been a 
good exponent of exactly what you are calling for in your post: a 
discussion of "where things have gone" in the TMO and where they are 
going. Many of his comments and insights over the last few years have 
been very astute.


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

As far as I'm concerned Rick set the "community standards" as he 
defines it on the header for the group.  If you don't like them then 
start yet another bliss ninny group.  Those seem to be extremely 
popular and long lived. :-D


I've been online since the early 1980s.  I've seen many a BBS come and 
go.  I've seen heavy handed moderators come and go too.  Seems that 
late comers have a creepy idea of what moderation is about.


TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcus prices.  it was 
better when it wasn't so pretentious but then most people didn't know 
that much about yoga back then.  We've come a long ways.  This is a 
good forum to discuss where things have gone even if it riles TBs.


On 07/07/2015 11:38 AM, feste37 wrote:



I think it's part of what moderating is about. For example, I often 
read the comments section in articles in the Guardian. One recent 
comment got deleted, with the following message:


"This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by 
our community standards 
. Replies may also be 
deleted."



This is very common and I have no objection to something like it 
being implemented at FFL.



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


And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme 
circumstances which are usually rare.  You should never give 
moderation over to a tech illiterate.  It just makes them a laughing 
stock.


Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-)

On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote:





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


It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be 
observed when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable 
about that. It is long overdue.


Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million 
times before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale 
to have an opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer 
opportunism and hide behind the guidelines. We aren't children for 
god's sake.



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


It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and 
explained why you are okay with what Doug is doing here.


It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out 
of the ashes."  Did you say that?


We don't know, and that's on you.

Why?

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for 
over a decade.  We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, 
but now, when we're all adrift, you don't show up.


WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?



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


Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" 
(slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see 
two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned 
following Barry's "first shoe dropped."



I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, 
evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban 
posters is in the wrong hands.



First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover 
Yahoo's back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. 
Obviously if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would 
have happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL 
during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has 
become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be 
solved that needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to 
be guidelines, it basically says, do what you want on your sites 
because defining limits is too hard.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[ultrarishi]

reddit anyone?


Let's initiate Ellen Pao and put her in charge.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[feste37]

 I'm mystified as to why you think that the alternative to having a moderated 
group as it is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" group. That's absurd. I 
am all for vigorous discussion, opposing points of view, and honest dialogue. I 
am against the kind of knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against all 
things spiritual that went on here up until the last few weeks.  And for all 
the abuse Doug has taken, one would hardly realize that he has been a good 
exponent of exactly what you are calling for in your post: a discussion of 
"where things have gone" in the TMO and where they are going. Many of his 
comments and insights over the last few years have been very astute. 

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

 As far as I'm concerned Rick set the "community standards" as he defines it on 
the header for the group.  If you don't like them then start yet another bliss 
ninny group.  Those seem to be extremely popular and long lived. :-D 
 
 I've been online since the early 1980s.  I've seen many a BBS come and go.  
I've seen heavy handed moderators come and go too.  Seems that late comers have 
a creepy idea of what moderation is about.
 
 TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcus prices.  it was better 
when it wasn't so pretentious but then most people didn't know that much about 
yoga back then.  We've come a long ways.  This is a good forum to discuss where 
things have gone even if it riles TBs.
 
 On 07/07/2015 11:38 AM, feste37 wrote:
 
   

 I think it's part of what moderating is about. For example, I often read the 
comments section in articles in the Guardian. One recent comment got deleted, 
with the following message:
 
 "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our 
community standards. Replies may also be deleted." 
 
 
 This is very common and I have no objection to something like it being 
implemented at FFL. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme circumstances 
which are usually rare.  You should never give moderation over to a tech 
illiterate.  It just makes them a laughing stock.
 
 Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-) 
 
 On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be observed 
when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about that. It is long 
overdue. 
 

 Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million times 
before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale to have an 
opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer opportunism and hide behind 
the guidelines. We aren't children for god's sake.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.
 
 It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?
 
 We don't know, and that's on you.  
 
 Why?  
 
 We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a 
decade.  We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're 
all adrift, you don't show up.
 
 WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
 
 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 
 
 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 
 
 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 
 
 
 
 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

As far as I'm concerned Rick set the "community standards" as he defines 
it on the header for the group.  If you don't like them then start yet 
another bliss ninny group.  Those seem to be extremely popular and long 
lived. :-D


I've been online since the early 1980s.  I've seen many a BBS come and 
go.  I've seen heavy handed moderators come and go too.  Seems that late 
comers have a creepy idea of what moderation is about.


TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcus prices.  it was 
better when it wasn't so pretentious but then most people didn't know 
that much about yoga back then.  We've come a long ways.  This is a good 
forum to discuss where things have gone even if it riles TBs.


On 07/07/2015 11:38 AM, feste37 wrote:



I think it's part of what moderating is about. For example, I often 
read the comments section in articles in the Guardian. One recent 
comment got deleted, with the following message:


"This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by 
our community standards 
. Replies may also be 
deleted."



This is very common and I have no objection to something like it being 
implemented at FFL.



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

And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme 
circumstances which are usually rare.  You should never give 
moderation over to a tech illiterate.  It just makes them a laughing 
stock.


Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-)

On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote:





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


It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be 
observed when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable 
about that. It is long overdue.


Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million 
times before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale 
to have an opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer 
opportunism and hide behind the guidelines. We aren't children for 
god's sake.



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


It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and 
explained why you are okay with what Doug is doing here.


It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out 
of the ashes."  Did you say that?


We don't know, and that's on you.

Why?

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over 
a decade.  We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, 
when we're all adrift, you don't show up.


WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?



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


Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" 
(slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see 
two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned 
following Barry's "first shoe dropped."



I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, 
evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban 
posters is in the wrong hands.



First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's 
back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. 
Obviously if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would 
have happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL during 
the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has become 
much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up considerably in the 
last few years. There was no problem to be solved that needed this 
kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining 
limits is too hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not 
objective rules in any sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo 
does not care, it is up to us.



Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the 
real world, I believe this is an important point to consider. This is 
the only level where I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread 
the post a few times and noticed that there are no names mentioned. 
This means that you would have to be a regular reader of this site to 
even understand what he is referring to. And if someone is that far 
up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I even knew 
about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by 
search engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is 
important because when people came after me and got canned for it, it 
was after repeated offenses. One or two would have slipped by the 
radar but they insisted on making it a big deal through relentless 
repe! tition.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[feste37]

 I think it's part of what moderating is about. For example, I often read the 
comments section in articles in the Guardian. One recent comment got deleted, 
with the following message:

"This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our 
community standards http://www.theguardian.com/community-standards. Replies may 
also be deleted." 


This is very common and I have no objection to something like it being 
implemented at FFL. 


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

 And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme circumstances 
which are usually rare.  You should never give moderation over to a tech 
illiterate.  It just makes them a laughing stock.
 
 Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-) 
 
 On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be observed 
when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about that. It is long 
overdue. 
 

 Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million times 
before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale to have an 
opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer opportunism and hide behind 
the guidelines. We aren't children for god's sake.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.
 
 It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?
 
 We don't know, and that's on you.  
 
 Why?  
 
 We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a 
decade.  We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're 
all adrift, you don't show up.
 
 WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
 
 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 
 
 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 
 
 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 
 
 
 
 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repe! tition.
 
 
 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion 
from the group for the contrived "offenses." 

 

 Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using 
names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him 
from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would 
challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme 
circumstances which are usually rare.  You should never give moderation 
over to a tech illiterate.  It just makes them a laughing stock.


Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-)

On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote:





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

It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be 
observed when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about 
that. It is long overdue.


Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million 
times before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale to 
have an opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer opportunism 
and hide behind the guidelines. We aren't children for god's sake.



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

It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and 
explained why you are okay with what Doug is doing here.


It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out 
of the ashes."  Did you say that?


We don't know, and that's on you.

Why?

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over 
a decade.  We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, 
when we're all adrift, you don't show up.


WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?



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

Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" 
(slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two 
valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned following 
Barry's "first shoe dropped."



I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, 
evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban 
posters is in the wrong hands.



First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's 
back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously 
if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would have 
happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL during the 
infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has become much 
worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up considerably in the last 
few years. There was no problem to be solved that needed this kind of 
crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it basically says, 
do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too hard. 
They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in 
any sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is 
up to us.



Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the 
real world, I believe this is an important point to consider. This is 
the only level where I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the 
post a few times and noticed that there are no names mentioned. This 
means that you would have to be a regular reader of this site to even 
understand what he is referring to. And if someone is that far up 
FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I even knew about 
his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not repeat 
linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important 
because when people came after me and got canned for it, it was after 
repeated offenses. One or two would have slipped by the radar but they 
insisted on making it a big deal through relentless repe! tition.



In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an 
amazing degree of lack of self awareness not to realize that this 
moderator is perpetuating the exact thing he fears from the movement: 
judging adult behavior and free will by subjective standards and then 
meting out the punishment of exclusion from the group for the 
contrived "offenses."



Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without 
using names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO 
and losing him from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful 
perspective. I would challenge anyone to match me post for post of 
contributions he has made intellectually to this forum and you can 
show me equally thoughtful posts from that other guy with his finger 
on the trigger.



Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't 
like posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that 
the motive is a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal 
POV. Michael was transparent about his motives for posting here. He 
represented a strong POV and I valued it. I wish there was a person 
who represented the movement's side as passionately. That would make 
for some great conversations. The only person who used to fill in for 
that role was N.  But he was so far from mainstream movement thinking 
and English was a second language so he was left only wit

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[salyavin808]

 

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

 It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be observed 
when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about that. It is long 
overdue. 
 

 Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million times 
before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale to have an 
opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer opportunism and hide behind 
the guidelines. We aren't children for god's sake.
 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.

It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?

We don't know, and that's on you.  

Why?  

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a decade. 
 We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're all 
adrift, you don't show up.

WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?

 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repetition.
 

 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion 
from the group for the contrived "offenses." 

 

 Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using 
names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him 
from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would 
challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made 
intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from 
that other guy with his finger on the trigger.
 

 Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like 
posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is 
a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was 
transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and 
I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as 
passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who 
used to fill in for that role was N.  But he was so far from mainstream 
movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with 
personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought 
he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned 
him just fine.
 

 FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and 
Michael is a loss to the site whether

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[feste37]

It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be observed 
when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about that. It is long 
overdue. 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.

It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?

We don't know, and that's on you.  

Why?  

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a decade. 
 We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're all 
adrift, you don't show up.

WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?

 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repetition.
 

 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion 
from the group for the contrived "offenses." 

 

 Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using 
names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him 
from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would 
challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made 
intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from 
that other guy with his finger on the trigger.
 

 Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like 
posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is 
a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was 
transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and 
I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as 
passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who 
used to fill in for that role was N.  But he was so far from mainstream 
movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with 
personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought 
he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned 
him just fine.
 

 FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and 
Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban 
had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative 
people, willing to put time into this site and create content makes this a 
valuable place to read. Many of the people, who are behind this change have 
been very light on detailed, thoughtful content over the years.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[Duveyoung]

It's on you RICK ARCHER.  You have not even once come here and explained why 
you are okay with what Doug is doing here.

It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the 
ashes."  Did you say that?

We don't know, and that's on you.  

Why?  

We deserve YOUR ANSWER.  We've supported your ownership here for over a decade. 
 We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're all 
adrift, you don't show up.

WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?

 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repetition.
 

 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion 
from the group for the contrived "offenses." 

 

 Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using 
names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him 
from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would 
challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made 
intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from 
that other guy with his finger on the trigger.
 

 Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like 
posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is 
a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was 
transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and 
I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as 
passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who 
used to fill in for that role was N.  But he was so far from mainstream 
movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with 
personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought 
he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned 
him just fine.
 

 FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and 
Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban 
had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative 
people, willing to put time into this site and create content makes this a 
valuable place to read. Many of the people, who are behind this change have 
been very light on detailed, thoughtful content over the years. Provocative 
people inspire us to write here. It PROVOKES us. It often takes that kind of 
provocation to decide to take time from our busy lives to share ideas with a 
bunch of strangers. 

 

 Our moderator is react

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I used to promote a high tech company on search engines Alex. I brought them to 
number one in their category. Recent postings of a name pumps up the relevancy 
in searches. At the time I was complaining about my name being used repeatedly, 
I could track how it was affecting the search engines.

The issue was never about having complete anonymity on search engines or trying 
to make sure there was no way anyone could, with some research, find my real 
name and connect my contributions over the decades on the web. It was about 
trying to keep recent links off so that the relevancy of connection gets 
drowned by recent contributions.

The results you see entering my name is the result of my vigilance about how I 
show up on the Web. I get it that it took Rick's knowledge of how search 
engines work to get relief from the people trying to torpedo me and I am glad 
he had that background to understand my concerns. 

So the goal is not anonymity. That is the same straw man argument the last R 
used. It is current relevancy and numbers of posts that both Vaj and I were 
concerned with. It is the casual search that we are concerned with, not an in 
depth investigative profile of our history on the Web. And for that recent and 
multiples are the way to skew the search engines. Rankings are not fixed, they 
are in flux. Protecting myself online is about what happens now, not in the 
past. And for the record I did ask Rick not to put my name and birthday on the 
Web since then and he has respected my request.




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

 With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you 
either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the 
situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. 
A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the 
very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, 
including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way 
shape or form even remotely anonymous. Same deal with Vaj, who even signed his 
real name to his own posts and then later started throwing hissy-fits when his 
real name was used.

Wanna be anonymous on FFL? Create a username that is used only on FFL and that 
doesn't even hint at any other non-FFL identity. Do a Google search on 
salyavin808, Anartaxius, and Xenophaneros, and the only thing you'll turn up is 
links to FFL. That's how it's done.
 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repetition.
 

 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then met

[FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

With respect to anonymity, my view is that it's exactly like virginity: you 
either have it or you don't, and when it's gone, it's gone forever. Curtis, the 
situation with you and your so-called anonymity is, IMO, completely ridiculous. 
A Google search of your FFL/Yahoo user name brings up your music site as the 
very first link. And, the archives are littered with your real last name, 
including a birthday shout-out from Rick, himself. You are simply in no way 
shape or form even remotely anonymous. Same deal with Vaj, who even signed his 
real name to his own posts and then later started throwing hissy-fits when his 
real name was used.

Wanna be anonymous on FFL? Create a username that is used only on FFL and that 
doesn't even hint at any other non-FFL identity. Do a Google search on 
salyavin808, Anartaxius, and Xenophaneros, and the only thing you'll turn up is 
links to FFL. That's how it's done.
 

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

 Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor 
of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable 
contributors, Michael and Xeno have been canned following Barry's "first shoe 
dropped."
 

 I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, 
judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the 
wrong hands.
 

 First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back 
side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared 
about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things 
were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea 
that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up 
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that 
needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it 
basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too 
hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any 
sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. 

 

 Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, 
I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where 
I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed 
that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a 
regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if 
someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I 
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not 
repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search 
engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when 
people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One 
or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big 
deal through relentless repetition.
 

 In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This 
behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree 
of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating 
the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free 
will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion 
from the group for the contrived "offenses." 

 

 Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using 
names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him 
from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would 
challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made 
intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from 
that other guy with his finger on the trigger.
 

 Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like 
posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is 
a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was 
transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and 
I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as 
passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who 
used to fill in for that role was N.  But he was so far from mainstream 
movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with 
personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought 
he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned 
him just fine.
 

 FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and 
Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban 
had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative 
people, willing to put ti