My perspective has changed some Curtis, but I'm still holding true, (joke, to you, I guess), to my assertion that I'm glad B is gone, and I'm okay with the pretext.
I'd like to see how this place rolls without him. So, yes, Curtis, (and Rick, if you're listening), sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes the exception to the rule, works, (wonders). And if you take a look at your site, Rick, you'll see the place as lightened up some, in spite of this latest dust up. Let it play out, Rick. Listen the input from the women. That, by itself, should tell you something. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Thanks for your feedback. Curtis, I think I get where you are coming from. I think most of us do. As I recall, Doug did provide some explanation, but perhaps you felt it was just weak cover to get rid of someone who was a perceived enemy, or at least constant thorn. Me: It was an explanation so vague that even Judy is left having to invent her own reasons. It was not something we could point to and say, "I know where the new line is." Steve: And, what I am saying, which is what I've said before, I'm okay with that. I get that this lessons whatever marginal respect I might have had in some people's eyes. Me: I would never go that far Steve.I just think you are wrong about this. Steve: How bout this. Why don't you let loose with what you feel would get you banned, and see what happens? Me: Jesus H Christ Steve, you remind me of my older brother advising me to put a wire in an electric socket. Steve: But, here's the kicker. How bout stay true to the Curtis we all know here, and who most of us like and respect? Me: I am a bad example. First I don't roll with obvious targets in my writing here. I don't even like to spell out the F word. I don't like to cloud my point in things that give people an excuse to miss my real point. Second, Buck has to lay low until all this blows over or Rick makes a move. It would prove nothing now. Steve: Michael has indicated he's going to resuscitate his anti Bevan, anti MMY, anti JH, anti Brad O'Nash tirades. How boring will that be! But at least, MJ, in my opinion is not a twister of what people say. He is just a straight, down the line, TM, MMY basher. That is tolerable, IMO. Your writing and insights bring a lot to the place. You have some enemies here, but far more appreciate what you post. Anyway, got interrupted and lost my train of thought. Me: Back at you and thanks Steve. We are all just bozos on this bus. I like the place the way it was, YMMV. Send! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : excuse me for interrupting here, Curtis, but this is quite a distortion. Your issue is primarily with Judy, so come on, is this a martyr play of some sort? Me: My issue is with our new moderator. Judy is just a way to keep the discussion lively. S: most others here value your perspective, because, I found it to be pretty straightforward, and civil, and not a self proclaimed agenda to push peoples buttons. so, maybe you are using your standing here to compare yourself to Barry and in that way elevate his status some, but I sure as hell, ain't buying it. Me: I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am not comparing myself to Barry we had completely different focuses of attention here. But how you and I view me is not an issue. It is that if Buck gets it into his head that I have violated his subjective interpretation of vague rules, any of us can be ousted on a whim with zero transparency. And any cries of "that is not fair" for an individual you like more than Barry will be met the same accountability, none. I believe you are on the wrong side of this Steve, I really do. Steve:and may I also, say, it's quite an exaggeration trying to compare Doug's moderating to MMY's philosphy of management. . Me: We disagree here, I consider this textbook MMY. Steve:As was pointed out. Two trolls have been removed. Nothing more. Me: Calling them both the same name conflates their "violations" unfairly. And I don't trust your opinion to be the law here any more than you should trust mine. What is "trolling" is an imprecise term that could at one time or other be applied to most of us here. What is happening here is that rules are being invoked to cover a popularity contest. I object to that kind of moderation for a bunch of adults who were doing just fine without it. Steve:You seem to trying hard, and quite ingeniously, IMO, to make the appropriate sentence where two trolls have been removed, into a great miscarriage of justice. Me: I am not lumping them together, you are. They should not be mentioned in the same discussion of what is going on here. Steve:Barry was a troll. He's not here, and the site is better off for it. And, maybe if you can stick to what has happened, instead of what might, could (and hasn't) happened, then good things will continue. Me: Steve you trolled him right back. And it didn't affect me either way because it was both of your choices to interact that way and I never had to read or be a part of it. That is what freedom is all about. I appreciate your extending the discussion. I am making my case and some buy it and some don't. But I always appreciate your friendly tone with me and respect that you are expressing your POV about a complex topic. I am pro discussion and anti banning without discussion. So far Doug has stonewalled us on his reasons for banning Barry. So some are making up their own to cover this glaring gap. I am keeping my eye on that gap because I believe it is important to the usefulness of the place for me to post on. I never want to have to think before I hit send:"What would Buck think of this post?" Steve:Who knows, maybe Barry will be a part of it, at some point. Me: If Rick decides to intervene I believe that will be the case. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Et tu Edg? So if he culls one from the herd unfairly, but you don't like the guy anyway it is OK? Say it is not true my brother, say it is not true. It is only when he comes for you that you will get a sense of conscience? Right now, bouncing me would be more trouble than it would be worth, but by the criteria already used, I am just as vulnerable and so are you. If the criteria is held in secret and is "whatever the F he feels like" then it is just a matter of time until only the Age of Enlightenment News gets broadcast here. And before I am accused of the slippery slope fallacy, I lived this exact brand of control in the same movement Buck was trained in. He is already referring to opposing his banning with zero accountability as "nitpicking." Do you care that he lied about Rick being behind this ban with him? Have you ever been in a room where some sanctimonious prick came bustling in and said "Maharishi wants _________. And then you find out later that it was just his idea and he wanted to silence dissent ahead of time by invoking Maharishi's name? Before he found this angle Buck was advocating shutting down FFL. He has no love for free discussion here. I challenge anyone to repost any time he has engaged in a back and forth discussion with a participant here, the kind you and I value. Just one. And I double dare anyone to post one where he shows up as a genuine person talking to another adult instead of this constant condescension, first veiled by persona and now in the open. Edg, do ya hear me! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Heh, gotta ask, "what's the actual risk of Doug?" Will he bounce others? I don't think so. Look at this scurvy's crew's roiling bitching at each other that's going on RIGHT NOW, and he's done nothing about that. Maybe it was a vendetta against the trolls with "any reason" being enough. So? Yeah, abusive. So? I just don't see this kind of fascism happening again unless someone truly rises to the troll heights -- which was a very high bar being set. Doug chided me about swearing, but nothing since even though I still swear -- this shows his, um, forbearance? Bah, I'm just happy I can post here again without really having to steel myself for the barbs. Short sighted of me, but there it is. If there is a Sword of Damocles, it's a heavy chain holding it up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Me: You just saved me some typing time. Excellent, thank you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : But the spirit of FFL was far more interesting than this drivel, and in 10 years Yahoo never made any attempt to change or alter what happened on FFL, Yahoo really does not care what happens in their groups unless it somehow affects them financially. You are also incorrect in using the term re-moderation. This group was moderated, with a light and just hand that allowed far more than now, true freedom of speech. Your lack of transparency in the issues you have handled so far reveals the dark, covert spirit that dwells within. This clandestine spirit is the enemy of truth seeking, and I for one, vote for your removal from this position. I see you have resumed spamming FFL, and this is also a violation of the so-called guidelines. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Dear Friends of FFL; I feel we are moving very much within the spirit and intent of letter of the Yahoo-groups guidelines in the re-moderation we have done thus far.... <spam removed>.
