--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > TurquoiseB wrote: ..... Bronte, It might help you to put it in > > perspective that what I was replying TO when I made that crack was > > some newbie getting all pompous and trying (in her first post to > > the forum, no less) to lecture everyone here on how they should > > conduct themselves, on a forum she had obviously not spent very > > much time reading." > > Edg: Turq, this word "obviously" is not so easily validated. It > smacks of an ad hominem attack in that it SEEMS to imply that > Bronte has a personality that is "not up to Turq's standards of > message board scholarship and thus deficient to some degree and > in need of fixing."
Not necessarily. I think she's acting a little like a car salesman who doesn't recognize that the sale is a done deal, still pitching the sale when she would be better served by keeping quiet and letting the buyers sign on the dotted line. :-) She *made* her point. The vast majority of people here *agreed* with it. But she keeps harping on it. Now is the time (in my *opinion*) to kick back a little and see what happens, not to try to keep preaching. > I don't think that the cogency she's shown us thus far deserves > this kind of treatment. What kind of treatment? I "told it as I see it," and with more than a little restraint. For me. :-) > In fact, she told us all that she'd been lurking, so if that's > true, her "lack" of seeing the "whole picture" that you seem to > "have" comes down to her having a POV different from yours. That is clearly true. Bronte seems to believe that there IS a "proper way" for people to act on a spiritual forum, and that she should continue lobbying for that "proper way." I'm just trying to remind her that the TM movement felt exactly the same way when it imposed all of *its* rules of behavior on her and everyone else here. And that she now feels, in her words, like a "victim" of that. It's a slippery slope when one starts to mandate behavior. In my opinion the best way to influence behavior is to act oneself the way one is suggesting to others (not *demanding* of others) that they act. Thus my little snippet to MDixon today. I *understand* that he finds curse words distasteful and would like to see fewer of them here. Since I am one of the prime offenders of this particular "sin," I just couldn't help pointing out that he has used such words himself in the past, and thus has no real basis on which to criticize others until he lives up to his own suggested "rules" himself. > There's tons of wiggle room in which I can have the thought that > Bronte is not a "yokel lacking insight and unconcerned about it." To pull a Judy here, you're putting something in quotes that I don't think anyone said, or implied. I know that I certainly didn't say it. I referred to her as a newbie. She is. So, compared to many here, am I. After two years *I* am still learning about this place. People I thought might offer little of value after a year of reading their posts have recently surprised me by posting some intelligent and measured and remarkably well-thought-out stuff. But it really *is* a kind of accepted standard on Net forums that you don't roll into town with guns blazing and expect everyone to pin a Sheriff's badge on you. You kick back for a while, offer up an *example* of what you think "proper posting" is all about, and *then* you offer a few suggestions. You don't start out with a 90-line post berating an entire forum for not being what you expected it to be. > However "lite" you've been in your "labeling," I do feel that, > indeed, labeling has occurred. And? Are you going to suggest that labeling is now "against the rules," too? Bronte *is* a newbie on this forum, no matter how many others she might have been on. > If a ten year old child somehow started posting here, we'd all > handle the child with, ahem, kid gloves, ya? Depends on the child. > Bronte may indeed need to do more reading to get a feel for > "this place," but it she were a ten year old who had not read > widely enough, the group would throw a cream pie in YOUR face > for "chiding the child" and "expecting too much too soon from > a "starter nervous system." I kinda like cream pies, so no problemo. :-) Bronte is *not* a ten-year-old child. She's an adult who says that she's been around the spiritual block a few times. > I think we need to treat each other with this kind of delicacy > if we're to turn around the flaming here. And you and I have a different point of view on this subject. That does *not* mean that I consider yours "wrong," or mine "right," only that I've spent a lot of time pondering this subject. The TM movement -- and many other spiritual traditions -- feel strongly that it should treat the seekers within their organizations as if they are children who need to be protected. The guru or head teacher is kind of a Big Daddy Figure. *He* makes the decisions for the benefit of the children who need to be protected. Sorry, I don't buy it. I consider this a Class A, surefire way of *keeping people children* and preventing them from ever growing into adults who can make their own spiritual decisions. I've been exposed to a few spiritual traditions in which the teachers speak to and treat the students not only as adults, but as if they have hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of lifetimes under their belts, and thus are more than capable of making their *own* decisions about things. In my experience, this approach works out much better for both teacher and student in the long run. So I am *not* a fan of treating seekers like children who need to be protected. I think it's a disservice to them. You may disagree, and that's fine. > Now, to add to your understanding, let me testify that I too > lurked for years here, and when I started posting, I thought > I knew the score, but I was quite off about most folks here, > and I found out in short order that the reactions of others > to my thoughts are quite different than I would have predicted. As, I would expect, did everyone else here who has been around for a while. > Suddenly, the "trolls popped" and I could see them as I had > never seen them before -- but only after they'd reacted to me. > In short, it may be very hard to "get a feel for a place" by > merely lurking. Depends on how long you lurk. :-) I'm *not* saying that one should lurk for years before posting. I'm merely suggesting that one should lay low in terms of lecturing the entire group and telling them that they're doing everything wrong until you've had time to figure out what they're doing right. > It's one thing to read the words of a troll, it's another thing > to read the words of a troll about "me." Then it becomes personal, In a Buddhist context, the troll has then done you a favor, by pointing out where your attachments lie. :-) Some trolls here may actually have that in mind. Or, they could be as crazy as they seem. Me, I don't know.
