---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
Xeno, let's unpack this a bit.
You, I repeat, you, are the person who has stated on several occasions that
you have a touch of sociopath.
Perhaps you can do me a favor and look up the definition of sociopath.
But, here's my understanding.
A sociopath is someone who takes a certain pleasure in making people
uncomfortable, by any means. And the means don't really matter much. The goal
is to make them uncomfortable.
A true sociopath sees people as objects, and does not experience empathy or
guilt. They do apparently experience other emotions, but not like a normal
person. So under normal circumstances, say you had one for a friend, if you
died, they would not care, they would move on easily. They can be manipulative
because they have desires, things they want etc., their sense of self, is
flexible.
I seem to have a touch of this, but I am not a true sociopath. The thing here
is people in general ('normal') get uncomfortable when their world view is
challenged. If you take the basic idea and theory of enlightenment for example
as being true, then until full awakening, you are not living reality at all,
but are living a dream, a fictitious existence in which every thought and idea
you have about the world is just plain wrong. How uncomfortable the path of
enlightenment can be depends on how fast that fictitious world in the mind is
ripped away. TM does it gently, slowly most of the time, so it is not horribly
upsetting, but a person might be surprised at how uncomfortable life can be as
the dark stuff comes to the surface. It's kind of like dying because you have
to give up everything you thought was real. That TM is gentle, it is for gentle
people who can't take a lot of pain, but it is also therefore, with its light
touch, likely to be slow. To go really really fast, sometimes you need a
crowbar or some truly horrible life experience to jar the nervous system out of
its slumbers. Even enlightened people have residual conditioning and that
conditioning can get challenged. They are more likely to deal with it
gracefully and not on a personal level.
In a way, enlightenment seems to create a situation similar to sociopathy, in
that the personal level of existence drops away. This is why some 'masters' can
be quite uncomfortable to be around, because they are not going to buy your
shit. Of course some so-called masters can be difficult to be around because
they are just rotten to begin with.
Maybe others here don't care for a forum that has devolved into that sort of
atmosphere due to the continual posts by one of one of the most active
participants.
That's because they are living in a fantasy world. This is, or was, the place
to grapple with these issues. People really want to get enlightened up to a
point, but once they begin to discover what you really have to give up to get
over the threshold, they balk. This won't happen this way for everyone. There
are always a few who are pretty clear to begin with, and they might have a
really easy time of it. The probability you will be that fortunate is unlikely.
That is just statistical, not a statement of your personal worth. Your personal
worth is what you give up with enlightenment. What takes its place is much
better.
And, by the way, that particular participant has stated on many occasions
that, that is his raison d'etre for participating here.
I was not particularly fond of another poster here, 'R' who also was let off.
I am happy he is gone, but Rick, for a long time, let him stay. If he had not
crossed the line with Curtis, he still would be here. My method was to skip
over his posts and not waste my time reading them, and set my e-mail to drop
them in the trash folder. No problem. As long as people are not physically
harming each other, which is impossible for the most part here, you can just
not pay attention to what you do not like. If you do put your attention on
these things, then you might ask yourself what are you getting off on, in
complaining about it?
I also came to dislike authfriend's posting as well, but I would never ban her
annoying as I found her. She is sharp, in her own way a sniper like Turq. I
consider her the polar opposite of Turq, so they are in some way very similar.
There is an intimate relationship between opposing forces. But like matter and
anti-matter, an explosion when they come together too closely.
I think a lot of people here think of Turq as a low-vibe spiritual loser, but
they gloss over things that show he has definite insight into spiritual
matters. For example here is something he wrote in 2008:
'One of the things I cannot help but notice, having been exposed to views of
spirituality other than the ones dealt with in TM, is that the TM view often
seems blissfully unaware of the occult. The "occult" deals not with "black
magic" or other low-vibe stuff, but with ENERGY MANAGEMENT. It's the study of
life as a series of energy transactions, how to be aware of when such
transactions are going on, and how to preserve as much of your own energy as
possible *as* they are going on.'
This is rather an intriguing idea, I had never hear of it before today, I came
on FFL in 2011.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :
On one Yahoo page Guidelines for Comments on Yahoo, the following appeared at
the end of their so-called guidelines:
'Yahoo is not responsible or liable in any way for comments posted by its
users'
That rather undoes any responsibility on Yahoo's part regarding the content of
the guidelines and enforcement.
There are those of us who would like to unseat the current CEO of moderation
so we could have more interesting conversations about how TM fails to produce
rational human beings who can take anything that is thrown at them (we are
talking about words here, not bullets, that's another story).
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote :
Thanks for all your concern for the community here. The yahoo-guidelines are
really quite simple. Folks will be quite fine on FFL as they write well within
the wide margins of tolerance that are the Yahoo-groups guidelines.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote :
Regardless of how folks feel about Turq, moderation should be carried out
transparently, and not in a secret, undefined manner.
Me: Exactly Alex. No one can follow the lines if they are not painted clearly.
When people hide the criteria they are using to judge people it creates...
another TM movement.
So far, this experiment with Doug as moderator is starting to remind me of
when Rick put an Amma fanatic in charge of moderating the Amma free speech
group, with the end result being the loss of free speech and the creation of
the Amma Real Free Speech group.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
Turq's posting is exactly the reason so many social sites have shut down their
comment sections.
Excessive and abusive trolling.
I see little downside to having his participation here terminated.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
I sincerely hope that TurquoiseB is never allowed to post here again. He is
toxic for the entire group and should have been removed a long time ago.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote :
Gonna ask again, Doug: did you ban Turq for good or will you be restoring his
posting privileges at some point?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote :
I looked at the activity log, and Turq is still subscribed; all Doug did was
kill his ability to post. Whereas, Rick booted *and* banned the one who shall
not be mentioned (I think the banned list prevents a person from even sending a
subscription request.) The only people I've given the boot are spammers, and I
don't regard them as worthy of any kind of explanation. But, in the case of
people who are actual participants, I think full disclosure is in order. In
Turq's case, the reason is apparent, but it has not been disclosed if this is
just a temporary time-out or permanent. The fact that Doug didn't actually
unsubscribe him suggests the possibility that it isn't permanent.
What sayest thou, Doug? Is Turq gone for good?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
Thanks for posting this Alex. Perhaps Buck/Doug will share the rational here
so we can understand which of his interpretation of the previously never
enforced vague Yahoo guidelines Barry violated.
In the spirit of Barry's sense of humor here I think the only appropriate thing
to do now is to initiate a "dead pool" list of who is going to be next in the
the current purge.
1. Salyavin808 for his last brilliant, scathing indictment of Buck/Doug
2. Michael for his consistent efforts to put his finger in the eye of the
pompous powers that be in the movement.
3. Me for trying to focus my lens more and more precisely on what it is that I
object to in Buck/Doug's misuse of moderator power here. (I am speaking about
his threat to Barry for stating his opinion of David Lynch, not for getting
banned. Until he reveals it I don't know what his reasons were for that.)
Game on! Who will be next?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote :
I have zero idea what's going on, but I'll at least let him say goodbye.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: TurquoiseBee <turquoiseb@...>
To: Alex Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:46 AM
Subject: Alex, can you post a question to the forum for me?
It appears that Doug has gone ahead with his threats and has deleted my access
to Fairfield Life. I'm just wondering how he justifies doing this based on
supposedly "offending" posts of mine made back in May when on June 9th in post
#416493
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416493?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
he explicitly said:
In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution”
and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on
moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going
forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines
if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your
cooperative collaboration on this.
-JaiGuruYou!
Seems to me there is more than a little hypocrisy, double-dealing, and
outright dishonesty going on here, and since Doug has eliminated the
possibility of me bringing this question up to the group myself, I figured I'd
ask you to do it for me.
Thanks for everything. You have been more than fair in all of your dealings
with Fairfield Life and with the odd group of characters who have posted there
over the years. I wish that sense of fairness and honesty was equally present
in the newest moderator.
Barry...ooops, do I get in trouble for using my own real name? :-)
P.S. To everyone else, so long and thanks for all the fish...
