---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
Here's my take, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Ravi posted, and no one probably thought much about it. However, you reminded the denizens that Ravi had been banned, and so, it would follow, that if someone had been banned, and posted under another name, then that post would be deleted by the moderator. Me: Only he didn't delete the post that went after me, he chose to leave it. He went after the post that addressed himself. S: To do otherwise, would, I believe, open the moderator to accusations of favoritism and inconsistency. Me: Which is exactly how he used his power...again. Personally, if someone has been banned and wants to come back and post two or three years later, I'd say they should be given a chance. In fact, if someone has been banned, or their posting privileges revoked, I would say they should be allowed to come back and post after a six month period. That, in fact, is what I'd like to see happen in the case currently being debated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote : Actually, just this morning, Doug did his first exertion of editorial control by deleting Ravi's "Barry - here's the gameplan" thread. Granted, I can understand why he deleted it, but a deletion is a deletion. Thankfully, the offsite archive is under Rick's control, and the only way stuff gets deleted over there is if Rick emails the site's admin... like he's got the time and attention for that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : quite an exaggeration, I'd say. we know negativity, and we know what an edge is. everyone likes edge, no one lines trolling. it sounds Curtis, like you have a fervent wish for Doug to turn into the tyrant, he shows no sign of turning into. he banned Barry, because he obviously felt the site would be better off without an individual declaring, loudly, continually, that he was going to undermine him, the moderator, at every turn. since then, there has been no, as in zero, evidence of Doug exerting editorial control over the site. in fact, what we have, and what we haven't had in a long time is, ironically, the free expression of ideas, without someone with an overriding agenda putting the bum's rush on any idea he didn't like. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : snip And the people who didn't like the person look the other way and say,"let's move along and not be negative." And the people who have seen this all before and know where it leads stand up and speak out. Then one of two things happen. Maharishi visits the course and kicks out the power-grabbing guru wanna-be for abusing his power, or the other voices get quelled one by one. Time will tell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : And I notice that Dougy is still not responding to Curtis' request for an explanation to Turq's getting the boot - ignoring what needs to be addressed and blabbering about a bunch of other stuff is spot on TMO behavior. From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : This is not a place for someone who has a stated agenda to prove his point that an organization is a cult, and to label anyone who may defend the organization as cult apologist. According to the spiel on the Fairfield Life home page, this is the perfect place to discuss whether the TM Org is a cult. If what you say is true, then you feel this place has a stated agenda to prove the point that the TM Org is not a cult. This is a blatant statement showing you wish to suppress opposing points of view, as do many others here. Remember the first quotation on that page: "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell
