But Xeno, I think you want to censor too! You want to censor airheaded one liners. Airheaded one liners maybe want to censor too. Is this the solution? We each get to pick one kind of posting offense and censor that? In my experience, all censors think that they have the worthy goal of more orderliness.
What I'm saying is that we either have freedom of content AND form or we don't have freedom of curiosity, inquiry and growth. And lastly, as long as one is free to scroll past potentially offensive posts, how can domination occur in any significant way? ________________________________ From: "anartax...@yahoo.com" <anartax...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:55 PM Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC The problem with you being an administrator Buck, is you would suspend people for content, not just for posting over a limit, and that would be even more effective for destroying what goes on here than what is going on now. I feel you would suspend debate for doctrinal reasons. People have genuine disagreements over what this enlightenment thing really is, and the reason is it is never what people think it is. But if you kill people's inquiring in ways that you disagree with, you suspend one of the greatest assets in the search for enlightenment, which is curiosity. Posting limits can help with moderating extremes in debate, giving a more orderly forum, and keeping the blabbermouths and one-liner airheads from dominating time and space, but moderating content suppresses the truth that is found when you see between opposing values, and notice how they are always related, lock step. Enlightenment is not about religious values, it is something that is found when you pass beyond religious values. By the way Sam Harris's newest book, due sometime early next year I believe, is called 'Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion'. He is a serious neuroscientist and an eloquent spokesman for those intent on finding out what spirituality is from a scientific point of view without the sugar glaze of ideology. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> BUCK wrote: If Rick or Alex would show me how to suspend people from FFL I could help administrate that too. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Absolutely not. If you guys want post restrictions, then work it out amongst yourselves how you want it enforced. I will continue to have my old Dell laptop automatically run any needed post count script, but that's it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: BUCK WROTE: Why should Rick Archer host this site any longer for mostly fractious, abusive and unpleasant postings by a few people flooding the content with their personal animosities. The average poster, based on last week posts 25 messages, or about 111 a month, based on a 30 day month. I myself miss actual discussions. One line comments take up time I would rather, and now usually do, spend elsewhere. This argument about post limits revolves around who might what to handle posting limits should that ever resurface, because it has to be handled manually. Suppose, instead of a weekly post count, it were done once a month and everyone allowed, say 200 posts. The post count is run at the end of the month, and anyone over 200 gets to cool their heels for a whole month. It would not be necessary to run it weekly or even every night. Let each person keep their own track. Maybe even Alex might be able to handle this.
