Gotta scroll down Richard....that's where my reply to Curtis was. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :
Like. > On 6/10/2014 11:28 AM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emilymaenot@...> mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote : It's "go time?" Ah ha ha ha. God bless it, Curtis...lighten up! In the context the post was written, where it fell in the conversation, it was obvious to all that were following the exchange that it wasn't written by you. Yes, months later, taken out of context and looked at as a single post, Xeno was confused as to the authorship. Maybe he didn't follow the original exchange. Judy helped put it back into its proper context. C: Says the person who uses a fake name. Yeah, I should just chill out. E2: Of course I do. This is the internet! The issue with the internet is that everything is saved forever so you cannot control the context. But you have missed my point. Judy has been exposed for using relative grudge based ethics in this case. E2: Really? I thought she was laughing at the absurdity of the "ego " involved. I don't know what "relative grudge based ethics" means....do you mean "bias?" Or, are you trying to say she is "hypocritical?" She read the exchange and made a comment...... E:How can you possibly be passing judgment on "ethical" with regards to the creative mode of expression that was being employed here? You put in your word; you could be posting under a pseudonym if you wanted. This isn't corporate america; it's FFL. C: So you are arguing that because this is not "corporate America" mis-attributing the authorship of a post should be viewed without any regard for ethical standards? Disappointing. E2: Yes, it "mis-attributed" the authorship....on purpose *as a form of creative expression.* Similar to, in my mind as watching a comedian on stage doing a sketch....SNL does them very well sometimes. C: Ethics is relevant to any human interaction. The fact that you consider this to be a place free of such considerations is disturbing. E2: I didn't say that and it isn't true. My point is that you need to broaden your personal interpretation of the post and view it more objectively. The reason I did not use a pseudonym when I started posting on ALT TM many years ago was that I was criticizing the TM group and was standing behind what I wrote personally. I try to keep my personal and professional lives separate here as best I can but most of that ship has sailed. At the very least I expect people to not consciously post things as if I wrote them. You were never in TM so you can easily take a "chill" attitude. I have a bit more skin in this game. Presenting my views of Maharishi's teaching is important to me here. Our situation here couldn't be more different. E2: I respect your decision and your reasoning, but you are completely rewriting the context for the post that Robin wrote. Although, if he was going after your ego, he succeeded! E: Chill, deltablues, chill...... C: The obvious delight you take in my discomfort about this situation is a rather wide aperture to view you through. E2: Ah ha ha ha ha....good one. I'm not taking you as seriously as you are taking yourself is all - we should all be able to laugh at ourselves, imho. Maybe, you might take a look at that idea. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> mailto:anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> mailto:authfriend@... wrote : How Xeno could have mistaken Robin's parody of Curtis's view of him for something Curtis had written himself is beyond me, not just because of the obvious irony but because of the marked difference in writing style. C: It might have been because Robin broke the ethics of a board like this and signed my name to something he wrote to make it look as though I wrote it. This confusion was his intention and he must be enjoying a last little unethical FU to me that this has resurfaced. I haven't seen you condemn this deplorable tactic although I did read your list of excuses why he did it. So it got me wondering if you support this tactic of signing other people's name to posts? It seems as if this whole thing was a real hoot for you and since I always enjoy a comedic writing prompt myself I want to understand your position on this clearly. Is what Robin did an unethical tactic since these posts are on the Internet forever and might be read by someone who does not share your fascination with writing styles which is part of your profession...or is this no big deal so no one should get riled up about it? I await your ruling with great interest. J: It's also rather annoying that Xeno would impugn Robin's integrity by claiming he had made a private message public. Robin never did that or would have done it without explicit permission; that alone should have clued Xeno in. C: L'll pearl clutching (nod to Raunchy) huh Judy? How could it be imagined that a person who has broken on of the most fundamental and important rules for a message forum like this,(purposely mis-attibuting authorship for a post} break ANOTHER Internet forum ethical standard? I think Xeno can be forgiven for not making your assumption that he would draw any distinctions between these two ethical courtesies. So was Robin's breach of ethics, (which not only might theoretically lead someone to believe I had written something ,poorly, that I did not but it actually DID happen with Xeno), an unethical breach of the rules that make posting here safe for everyone... or is this no big deal that wouldn't bother you in the least if it happened to you? Theoretically speaking of course. From another post from Judy: Ain't that something? C: Something unethical to be condemned? J: And then Curtis pompously calling Robin "an internet troll," when FFL was the only place on the Web that Robin hung out. C: You know if I didn't know that Judy was brand new to web discussion groups, I would think that she was deliberately being misleading about the meaning of "internet troll" which has nothing to do with how many different forums people display that behavior on. And what psychic ability does Judy involve to know how many other forums Robin posted on, he was on one before FFL that we know of? I think Judy just wanted to call me a name and was making things up. J: Robin had done this to Curtis before, and Curtis became very wroth. But this was Robin's last shot at Curtis, and he figured, Why the hell not? He knew Curtis wouldn't respond, and he was about to leave FFL for good. C: Yes Judy, "why the hell not" indeed. The reason might be that we rely on people behaving with a certain set of ethics while posting here. The most fundamental one IMO is that care is taken to properly attribute who wrote what. Here we have a case that isn't even close to the line but Judy curiously gives him a pass. And the phrase "Robin's last shot at Curtis" is as succinct a statement of trollish intentions as I have seen. J: And the line in one of the quoted posts at the end, after quoting one of Curtis's previous expostulations: "You came, Curtis. I finally got you to come." So wonderfully crude. Robin was almost never crude on FFL. I laughed myself silly imagining Curtis's reaction. C: My reaction was the same as it was to the many other times Robin tried to use homo-erotic imagery when he was angry with me. I thought it was creepy. It is the same reaction I have to reading your delight in his use of the phrase. J: Happy grass, Emily. Glad you enjoyed this. C: So much joy from someone acting in a despicable way on this forum, cheered on by his supporters who share his low ethics. So it's go time Judy. Is this behavior of deliberately mis-attibuting posting authorship acceptable here? Is is justifiable if someone is really angry or plans not to post here again or for a while? Is it OK if we just figure, "what the hell?" The only reason I can think of that Xeno would have made such a gross error despite all the obvious clues is extreme anti-Robin bias. Making a mistake is really easy, it is there for all to see. A convoluted explanation is not required. I think, probably like Barry, I am not interested in a person's integrity. What they say and do is more important. Integrity is an imaginary property we give ourselves to bolster our position relative to others. In the absence of others there is no need for the idea. And if there is a need to promote one's integrity, then probably it is not there in the first place. I do not claim to have integrity. On the merely human level I am as flawed as anyone else in the eyes of others; and there are people smarter than me, stronger than me, more socially adept than me, people who think more clearly than me, and on and on. On a certain level of scale, I have what might be called integrity, but that is not on the scale that I interact with people, it is just the foundation of experience and does not do anything.
