But it's the Funny Farm Lounge. We should expect knee-jerk abusive and
often obscene ranting from the inmates. I just don't want to see
discussion narrowed to some "sheltered view of spirituality."
On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote:
I'm mystified as to why you think that the alternative to having a
moderated group as it is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny"
group. That's absurd. I am all for vigorous discussion, opposing
points of view, and honest dialogue. I am against the kind of
knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against all things
spiritual that went on here up until the last few weeks. And for all
the abuse Doug has taken, one would hardly realize that he has been a
good exponent of exactly what you are calling for in your post: a
discussion of "where things have gone" in the TMO and where they are
going. Many of his comments and insights over the last few years have
been very astute.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :
As far as I'm concerned Rick set the "community standards" as he
defines it on the header for the group. If you don't like them then
start yet another bliss ninny group. Those seem to be extremely
popular and long lived. :-D
I've been online since the early 1980s. I've seen many a BBS come and
go. I've seen heavy handed moderators come and go too. Seems that
late comers have a creepy idea of what moderation is about.
TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcus prices. it was
better when it wasn't so pretentious but then most people didn't know
that much about yoga back then. We've come a long ways. This is a
good forum to discuss where things have gone even if it riles TBs.
On 07/07/2015 11:38 AM, feste37 wrote:
I think it's part of what moderating is about. For example, I often
read the comments section in articles in the Guardian. One recent
comment got deleted, with the following message:
"This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by
our community standards
<http://www.theguardian.com/community-standards>. Replies may also be
deleted."
This is very common and I have no objection to something like it
being implemented at FFL.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <noozguru@...>
<mailto:noozguru@...> wrote :
And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme
circumstances which are usually rare. You should never give
moderation over to a tech illiterate. It just makes them a laughing
stock.
Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-)
On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be
observed when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable
about that. It is long overdue.
Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million
times before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale
to have an opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer
opportunism and hide behind the guidelines. We aren't children for
god's sake.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
It's on you RICK ARCHER. You have not even once come here and
explained why you are okay with what Doug is doing here.
It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out
of the ashes." Did you say that?
We don't know, and that's on you.
Why?
We deserve YOUR ANSWER. We've supported your ownership here for
over a decade. We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom,
but now, when we're all adrift, you don't show up.
WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <curtisdeltablues@...>
<mailto:curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move"
(slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see
two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned
following Barry's "first shoe dropped."
I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined,
evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban
posters is in the wrong hands.
First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover
Yahoo's back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced.
Obviously if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would
have happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL
during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has
become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up
considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be
solved that needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to
be guidelines, it basically says, do what you want on your sites
because defining limits is too hard. They have used airy platitudes
and these are not objective rules in any sense of the word. It is a
moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us.
Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the
real world, I believe this is an important point to consider. This
is the only level where I believe banning is appropriate. So I
reread the post a few times and noticed that there are no names
mentioned. This means that you would have to be a regular reader of
this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if someone
is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I
even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he
did not repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked
up by search engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This
is important because when people came after me and got canned for
it, it was after repeated offenses. One or two would have slipped by
the radar but they insisted on making it a big deal through
relentless repe! tition.
In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point.
This behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows
an amazing degree of lack of self awareness not to realize that this
moderator is perpetuating the exact thing he fears from the
movement: judging adult behavior and free will by subjective
standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion from the
group for the contrived "offenses."
Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it
without using names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble
act IMO and losing him from this forum is a huge content loss for a
thoughtful perspective. I would challenge anyone to match me post
for post of contributions he has made intellectually to this forum
and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from that other guy
with his finger on the trigger.
Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he
doesn't like posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of
agenda is that the motive is a hidden one, not that it expresses a
strong personal POV. Michael was transparent about his motives for
posting here. He represented a strong POV and I valued it. I wish
there was a person who represented the movement's side as
passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only
person who used to fill in for that role was N. But he was so far
from mainstream movement thinking and English was a second language
so he was left only with personal attacks of which I was the target
of many for years. I never thought he should be banned for that. I
thought the freedom to express himself damned him just fine.
FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry,
Xeno and Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them
or not. If the ban had been for Judy, I could have written
everything just the same. Generative people, willing to put time
into t! his site and create content makes this a valuable place to
read. Many of the people, who are behind this change have been very
light on detailed, thoughtful content over the years. Provocative
people inspire us to write here. It PROVOKES us. It often takes that
kind of provocation to decide to take time from our busy lives to
share ideas with a bunch of strangers.
Our moderator is reacting as if this is his own intellectual fiefdom
and the bannings so far have represented his personal offense at
posts that he should have taken care of by offering his own clearly
stated opposing opinion on. He cut the conversation short because he
has never shown any ability or interest in this area of detailed
back and forth discussions here. So he is taking out those who do
contribute one by one. I do not share the values represented by the
current moderator and believe that this is already having a chilling
affect on content here. It is limiting the value of this site as an
intellectual resource for me. I am going to send this post in an
email to Rick in hopes that he will rescue this valuable resource
from the direction it is going.
How many contributors have to go before we all realized this is no
longer FFL as Rick intended it anymore?
