[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Bhairitu > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:34 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior > > > > And then we of course have the artificial behavior or mood making that > the TMO has ingrained in people. Those who expect holy people to be > pious and never use harsh slang would do well to start packing their > bags for a trip to India where they've apparently never been and get a > reality check. :) > > Maybe that's what Nabby really means when he says people need a checking. J People will always strive for a that which they do not have. For some weak souls it becomes straining and moodmaking, an unnatural way of behavior. Trying to copy an enlightened mans behaviour. To imply that this is enforced by the Movement is ridicelous given everything we know Maharishi to have said about the importance of naturalness. Some weak souls will always resort to moodmaking. A checking will help but will rarely resolve the problem. Amongst realitychecks, India is on my shortlist for it's effectiveness. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, if anyone missed the photo, here it is: > > http://tinyurl.com/2nrsyt Awesome. lurk >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior And then we of course have the artificial behavior or mood making that the TMO has ingrained in people. Those who expect holy people to be pious and never use harsh slang would do well to start packing their bags for a trip to India where they've apparently never been and get a reality check. :) Maybe that’s what Nabby really means when he says people need a checking. J No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior -- another perspective
some good advice, from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Enjoy your life and be happy. Being happy is of the utmost importance. Success in anything is through happiness. Under all circumstances be happy, even if you have to force it a bit to change some long standing habits. Just think of any negativity that comes at you as a raindrop falling into the ocean of your bliss. You may not always have an ocean of bliss, but think that way anyway and it will help it come. Doubting is not blissful and does not create happiness. Be happy, healthy and let all that love flow through your heart. We have an infinite number of reasons to be happy and a serious responsibility not to be serious. Always think of good qualities. Life is so precious. Every minute contributes to future progress. Where is the time to think of bad things? There is not enough time to think of all the good that exists on earth and in heaven." source: http://www.srigurudev.net/srigurudev/maharishi/discourses.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone > > knows, right? I was doing satire. > > And, let's face it...we've all seen the photograph > she posted here. This woman couldn't be a slut if > she tried. She could offer to pay people $1000 a > pop to have sex with her and still never accumulate > enough of them to qualify as a "slut." Now you've done it. Now there's a whole bunch of guys pissed off because they could have *used* that $1,000, but it never occurred to them to ask for it. BTW, if anyone missed the photo, here it is: http://tinyurl.com/2nrsyt
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
TurquoiseB wrote: > With all due respect, as I suggested when you first > posted here, it is the newbie's "duty" to spend some > time figuring out How Things Work On This Forum. It > is *not* the long-term members' "duty" to make things > easy for them. Do the work; you might find it reward- > ing. There are some diamonds here among the turds. I frequently join forums (not so much Yahoo groups) and having been involved with forums and BBS systems since 1983 realize that they tend to build cliques and can be a little hard to penetrate. But I just jump in. If they don't like it, tough. I posted something on a new forum the other day and immediately one of the people posted a barrage back not having anything to do with my post but because I had posted something that might take away attention from them. And of course examining that topic realized that is exactly what that person does. They are in great need of attention so they almost overpost in an attempt to get it. With years of experience you quickly learn who these people are when you join a forum. In another forum on video one guy posts like a complete illiterate, he can't spell at all nor handle grammar. He writes at a level above texting. Maybe you'd think that he is foreign and English not his primary language but his videos display something different. His narrations on the video don't display any of this and he is by no means someone unfamiliar with English. He apparently never learned to write. But like the case above this guy starts topics and wants to be the center of attention. To his credit though he doesn't take offense if you correct him on something. What I often think I am seeing on FFL is some late comers to the Internet and online communication. They're a bit like the people who send emails, new to computers, who write "friendly letter" format which is way out of style for email where memo format has ruled for year hearkening back to the days of 300 baud modems or slow networks where brevity was championed. They don't understand these are chat lists. Casual communication is in order not formal debate. I think they expect a polite tea party and get a keg party instead. I'm on a few lists that are run like tea parties and they are a little strained (pardon the pun). And then we of course have the artificial behavior or mood making that the TMO has ingrained in people. Those who expect holy people to be pious and never use harsh slang would do well to start packing their bags for a trip to India where they've apparently never been and get a reality check. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to figure out who is who in the forum. Here is a suggestion. As starters, read Marek, Curtis, Rick, Sal -- and Judy and Barry -- until the latter two start start snipping at each other. And don't read , R Williams, Off_World, or Shemp. And you should have a fairly happy and smooth ride. You will get a feel for others, indirectly, via unsnipped portions posts, when you read the above. > And where does it leave the new visitors, often people disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast. Thats your perception. IMO, I think that is an ungrounded fear -- if you are considerate, accurate and don't attack others, others won't attack you. > And who wants that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already working through enough shit from their confusing years in the movement? I think many here, I have, have used this forum to work through their own issues with the TMO. I have almost never felt abused or picked on in this pursuit. And that is for hundreds of posts on such -- over five years. Simply be considerate, don't vent unduly, don't abuse others, be accurate and reflective in what you say. In other words, simply follow the guidelines and you will be fine. See if you can find any poster who does this who has "trash" thrown at them? > Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, There is not need to do that. Use kindness, consideration and friendliness as your shield. Nothing here pierces that. But if some frustrated person tries, just realize that is their frustrated, limited POV, give them compassion, and move on. >We value the intelligence and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to participate in forums where they are dealt with violently. And men don't feel the same? This is not a male/female issue, IMO. Its a kind and considerate person vs rude, inconsiderate, and/or frustrated persons. > I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can become negative. If one sees only negative here (not saying you do), then read more closely, deeply. Seeing only negativity here is a gross misperception IMO. There are vast fields of positivity here. An I am referring to "tone" and insights. That does not mean one can't be critical of some idea or of past actions or circumstances. Such may bear great positive insight. However, one can maintain a considerate, intelligent, thoughtful tone about quite negative ideas or circumstances. "Positivity" above has nothing to do with "bliss-nininess". > For years we taught to "never entertain negativity," and the strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we would likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded remark. It was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People subjected year after year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are going to crack eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of forbidden expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a statement of independence and individuality. I hate the extremeness of the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its members, regardless of how they are feeling. > But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our abused past is a mistake. That's true. However, if that is how you are characterizing this forum, I suggest you read deeper. IMO, it is simply not a good description of most posters here. >It hurts us personally, and our get-even attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here. People here get attacked because they have attacked others. If you you don't attack, you generally will never be attacked. When you see someone attacked here, 9 times out of 10, its part of a 5-10 year battle going on between these people, often stemming back to other forums. it would be unfortunate to conclude all are attacked here because you see some attacked. Basically, FFL is like an old frontier town. There are nice towns people, who actually keep the town running. These people are never shot at. And then there are the gun fighters who wear huge arsenals of weapons and have short fuses and itchy trigger fingers. They shot and then ask questions. But they only shoot at people who also carry huge arsenals of weapons and who often shoot without thinking -- but reflexively. The nice towns people just ignore the gunfights and go about the positive business of the to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We can all ignore what we want and I think > >> the people who attract foul language have pretty thick skin. I don't >> see anyone getting dogged out without supporters jumping in. >> > > Lurky's POV. > > Here's the risk. You change the formula of coke, because this is what > people say they want in interviews. But things don't always play out > that way (Marketing Myopia -Harvard Case Study) You change the rules > to conform to what Bronte thinks is more desireable, and what happens- > - Bronte posts for a week and then moves on. Maybe checks in a > little more often than she does now. You get some nice dialogue > centering on "experiences", and then interest trails off. Heaven is > nice, but as I understand it, it gets kinda dull. We are in middle > earth where good and evil hold sway. Where karma plays out. So the > FFL is imperfect? What else is new. So, WTF is wrong with some GD > SELF DISCIPLINE. IGNORE the "trolls" as people like to call them. 35 > posts a week means that people must AT LEAST be more disciplined in > what they post. > > lurky Very well said and pretty much the same as my point of view on the subject.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > She wages battles for years, and you > do not tell her to back off the negative, abusive, demeaning > attitude, and then, she, emboldened by the group passivity > here, came at me for no offense other than that I was following > your "no abuse" rules regarding Turq posts -- some of which > thoroughly challenged my POVs. Let's just remind everybody again, because Edg can't seem to remember how it went down: He made a post headed "Time to vote -- Who's a bigger liar and fuckhead? John or Edg?" and said he awaited "the decision of the group." I thought he was asking for honest feedback, and I gave it to him. Turned out he only wanted *positive* feedback. He went ballistic, and is still fulminating.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about if we reach a similar consensus regarding abusive > language? I'd like to hear some feedback on how people feel > about this sort of behavior, either observing it in others, > being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you > actually feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does > it leave you feeling polluted? I don't like it when others are abused unfairly, but because of the unfairness, not the language. I don't mind at all when abuse is directed at me, even if it's grossly unfair, because it shows the person delivering it in such a negative light. I do my damndest always to be fair, even if I use abusive language. As far as the language itself is concerned, abusive or otherwise, I "feel better" when I think I've clearly expressed how I feel and why, period. What I'd like to see a consensus about is that people should make a major effort to be fair and accurate; and if someone is deliberately being unfair and/or inaccurate, I'd like to see everybody else "pile on" the person and convey their disapproval.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter > wrote: > > > > > > > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel > to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to > throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women > feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. > > > Bronte, > > I can't think of any examples in five years or more on this forum, of > situations where people who post insightful posts, and who do not slam > others or engage in pettiness, that have ever had abusive posts thrown > back at them. > > On the other hand, people who intentionally try to push > others' buttons, engage in strong criticism of others, try to > articulate the others' inner motives, hangups, and personality > disorders, are simply asking for the same in kind. And they get it, > usually as much or more than they give. > > If you are genuine, considerate, not critical of others (stating > differences of opinion and analyzing others ideas are fine), and don't > post to incite, then it would be quite rare or ever that you would > have a disagreeable post tossed directly at you. > > Let me give you an example. Marek, usually if not always, exemplifies > the positive qualities above. I cannot think of any disagreeable post > that Marek has ever received. > > But as a hypothetical, lets imagine your posts also exemplified > the positive qualities above, and never the negative ones, and > someone posted something unwarranted, not so nice, about you. > That is simple their POV or their frustration. Why get upset, or > take personally, a confused frustrated person's POV? If the shoe > doesn't fit, don't wear it. Move on. Plus which, if a person is unable to address your points on the merits, and substitutes a personal attack, realize that it says far more about them than it does about you. Actually, it speaks well for your argument that they aren't able to come up with a reasoned response to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. Bronte, I can't think of any examples in five years or more on this forum, of situations where people who post insightful posts, and who do not slam others or engage in pettiness, that have ever had abusive posts thrown back at them. On the other hand, people who intentionally try to push others' buttons, engage in strong criticism of others, try to articulate the others' inner motives, hangups, and personality disorders, are simply asking for the same in kind. And they get it, usually as much or more than they give. If you are genuine, considerate, not critical of others (stating differences of opinion and analyzing others ideas are fine), and don't post to incite, then it would be quite rare or ever that you would have a disagreeable post tossed directly at you. Let me give you an example. Marek, usually if not always, exemplifies the positive qualities above. I cannot think of any disagreeable post that Marek has ever received. But as a hypothetical, lets imagine your posts also exemplified the positive qualities above, and never the negative ones, and someone posted something unwarranted, not so nice, about you. That is simple their POV or their frustration. Why get upset, or take personally, a confused frustrated person's POV? If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Move on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
I agree with *almost* everything Barry says here. It's well put and very clear. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have found that those who are "questioning" > *rarely* are "eaten for breakfast" by those others here > who are questioning. They are often berated by those whom > we term True Believers, who seem to feel the need to > "defend" Maharishi, TM, and the vagaries of the TMO. > In my opinion (and that is all that it is, opinion), > much of the strife comes from people who are afraid > of asking questions themselves, and affronted when > others do it in their presence. I think Barry's opinion above actually reflects his annoyance at his own opinions and assertions *being* questioned. There is some reflexive defense of MMY here (not much of the TMO, though), but a lot of the questioning of Barry's and other critics' views has to do with problems with accuracy and fairness and simply providing possible alternate ways of seeing things. It doesn't make one a "True Believer" to decline to accept every single last criticism of MMY as gospel or to be unwilling to see him in the worst possible light. Indeed, sometimes the more extreme critics here behave a lot more like True Believers than those who question their pronouncements. And there are > some well-deserved insults hurled at one woman who has > done more than enough to deserve them for decades. Translation: I've probably been Barry's harshest critic over the 12 years (hardly "decades") I've been participating in TM forums. He doesn't like being criticized. > But please bear in mind that > within the TM movement there is a strong dogma *against* > "self-monitoring." It's almost considered "off the program." > Proper behavior is just supposed to happen magically the > longer you meditate; trying to force it is "mood making." > Remember? > > If you've been brainwashed by that sorta stuff for a long > time, it's really difficult for someone to make the tran- > sition to exercising a little control over one's behavior. Actually, we might want to remember that Barry just got done agreeing with Bronte about the "extremeness of the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its members, regardless of how they are feeling." Just a wee bit of a contradiction there... For Barry, it's important to get the movement coming and going, even if the going suggests precisely the opposite of the coming. Other than these few points, an excellent post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
TurquoiseB wrote:"no matter how rough around the edges it gets here from time to time -- the folks at Fairfield Life are adult enough to not need a Daddy here in the form of some heavy-handed moderator. Edg: "rough around the edges" hee hee. Thanks for the below, Turq. Really. Thanks. I will try to at least pretend I have this attitude a goodly bit more here. Who are any of us to play small and instead pretend that we are too tender to suffer the arrows of nitwits? When I let the miscreants with waterlogged pasta for brains get under my radar, 100% shame on me. I wish, Bronte, that you will post here, and let's see who gives you a hard time. You're obviously good hearted person, and even those of us who might see you as yet another canvas for our projections might pause before roughing you up with a rude blast of snobby guffaws. It could be a litmus test for all here to see if they can "at least treat Bronte" as we'd all like to be treated. A woman's heart shining in one's life? -- certainly a million times more important to have than the influence of all the churches and temples and mosques ever built. FairfieldLife could use some nice curtains here, and a small vase of flowers there, and bright cushions for the couch, and can't we have a nice parlor again instead of that worthless billiards table pocked with a million cigarette burns? Like that! Sigh...what blessings I sometimes imagine. I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy, but gee whiz goshamighty, maybe some day I'll deserve my environment to be that sweet natured. But then, rats! -- fighting about the truth, o so addictive to feel like an adult when hefting a battle ax. I feel both sides of my brain screaming at each other through the corpus colosseum! Edg Re: Civil Speech and Behavior --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes > feel to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's > sure to throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. While there is some merde-slinging on this forum, there is another way of looking at it that you might not have examined. There is often a 'tude among people who have pursued long-term spiritual paths that the people who walk that path (or similar paths) with them are somehow different from those in the "real world." You know what I'm talking about -- they are somehow "better," or "more evolved," or "less attached," or "beyond their samskaras." 40+ years spent pursuing spiritual paths or non- paths of one sort or another has taught me that this isn't true. People are people. In the most serene and peaceful abbey or monastery there are catfights and petty jealousies and sometimes outright violence. I mean...the Sixth Dalai Lama was murdered, technically by the Chinese, but with the active participation of many of his own monks, because his lifestyle had grown too out- rageous for them (he liked to party with women). You need look no further than the serial abuse within the Catholic Church or within many Zen and Eastern-based communities to see the truth of what I'm saying, let alone the TMO. So it seems to me that the problem lies where it *always* does -- with expectation and attach- ment. If we walk around with an unrealistic fan- tasy that spiritual people should act "spiritual," well duh! -- we *deserve* to be disappointed. It's just not realistic. People are people. Despite some claims to the contrary, I consider no one here enlightened, and even if they were I would consider them capable of bad or improper behavior. We're all just "workin' things out," each in our own Way. So it seems to me that, if one feels strongly that there IS some kind of "proper behavior" for those on a spiritual path, the only way to *do anything about it* is to try to live it yourself. Bitching about others *not* living it is just bitching. > As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people > we like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new > people to figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier > to just get up and leave. That causes FFL to become a rather > incestuous little group, unleavened by fresh viewpoints. With all due respect, as I suggested when you first posted here, it is the newbie's "duty" to spend some time figuring out How Things Work On This Forum. It is *not* the long-term members' "duty" to make things easy for them. Do the work; you might find it reward- ing. There are some diamonds here among the turds. > And where does it leave the new visitors, often people > disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place > to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at > Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for > breakfast. That is simply not true, at least not the way you phrased it. I have found that those who are "questioning" *rarely* are "eaten for breakfast" by those others here who are questioning. They are oft
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes > feel to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's > sure to throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. While there is some merde-slinging on this forum, there is another way of looking at it that you might not have examined. There is often a 'tude among people who have pursued long-term spiritual paths that the people who walk that path (or similar paths) with them are somehow different from those in the "real world." You know what I'm talking about -- they are somehow "better," or "more evolved," or "less attached," or "beyond their samskaras." 40+ years spent pursuing spiritual paths or non- paths of one sort or another has taught me that this isn't true. People are people. In the most serene and peaceful abbey or monastery there are catfights and petty jealousies and sometimes outright violence. I mean...the Sixth Dalai Lama was murdered, technically by the Chinese, but with the active participation of many of his own monks, because his lifestyle had grown too out- rageous for them (he liked to party with women). You need look no further than the serial abuse within the Catholic Church or within many Zen and Eastern-based communities to see the truth of what I'm saying, let alone the TMO. So it seems to me that the problem lies where it *always* does -- with expectation and attach- ment. If we walk around with an unrealistic fan- tasy that spiritual people should act "spiritual," well duh! -- we *deserve* to be disappointed. It's just not realistic. People are people. Despite some claims to the contrary, I consider no one here enlightened, and even if they were I would consider them capable of bad or improper behavior. We're all just "workin' things out," each in our own Way. So it seems to me that, if one feels strongly that there IS some kind of "proper behavior" for those on a spiritual path, the only way to *do anything about it* is to try to live it yourself. Bitching about others *not* living it is just bitching. > As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people > we like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new > people to figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier > to just get up and leave. That causes FFL to become a rather > incestuous little group, unleavened by fresh viewpoints. With all due respect, as I suggested when you first posted here, it is the newbie's "duty" to spend some time figuring out How Things Work On This Forum. It is *not* the long-term members' "duty" to make things easy for them. Do the work; you might find it reward- ing. There are some diamonds here among the turds. > And where does it leave the new visitors, often people > disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place > to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at > Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for > breakfast. That is simply not true, at least not the way you phrased it. I have found that those who are "questioning" *rarely* are "eaten for breakfast" by those others here who are questioning. They are often berated by those whom we term True Believers, who seem to feel the need to "defend" Maharishi, TM, and the vagaries of the TMO. It's all right there on the title page of this group. If you have some questions as to the INTENT of this group, and what it was founded for, I think Rick did an admir- able job of putting it in print on that statement: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ "The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions," etc. This place was *created* for people who are "questioning." In my opinion (and that is all that it is, opinion), much of the strife comes from people who are afraid of asking questions themselves, and affronted when others do it in their presence. > And who wants that damage to their tender feeling level, when > they're already working through enough shit from their confusing > years in the movement? While I understand your reference to the "tender feeling level," the only advice I can offer in that regard is to again look around you at LIFE. LIFE doesn't really give a shit about your "tender feeling level," or anyone else's. It *tough* out there. Just when you think you've got the serenity thing down pat, along comes a tsunami and your peaceful little shack on the beach is kindling. The issue is not what life throws *at* your "tender feel- ing level," because it always will. The issue seems to me to be about keeping it alive no matter what life *does* throw at you. > Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a > lot of us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to > do that. We value the intelligence and sensitivity of our > feelings, and don't choose to participate in forums where > they are dealt with violently. Define "violently." Seriously. In my opinion, no on
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
Rough Edges. Hee hee. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Other than a few personal battles here, I think you will find this an > interesting, safe place to post. I haven't seen anyone getting what > they don't give here. You set the tone by how you write and how you > respond. You can get into bickering wars but you can also ignore them > and interact with people who nourish you. > > You might find over time that some of the most intense posters have a > valuable POV that makes the rough edges worth it. Or perhaps not. > But either way it is up to you to set the tone of how you want to > interact here. Many people here are ready to be kind and supportive. > I hope you find them and enjoy this resource. I don't find ex-Tmers > to be more negative than anyone else. It may not be as fluffy soft as > the bunny crew, but there is plenty of heart on this board. Good luck! > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter > wrote: > > > > > > > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel > to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to > throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women > feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. > > > > As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we > like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to > figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier to just get up and > leave. That causes FFL to become a rather incestuous little group, > unleavened by fresh viewpoints. > > > > And where does it leave the new visitors, often people > disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk > about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, > unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast. And who wants > that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already > working through enough shit from their confusing years in the movement? > > > > Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a lot of > us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to do that. We value > the intelligence and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to > participate in forums where they are dealt with violently. So we visit > a while and move on. But where are we to go? Where can we go to talk > and explore spiritual issues, if not in a chatroom supposedly devoted > to spirituality? > > > > I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can > become negative. For years we taught to "never entertain negativity," > and the strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and > watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we would > likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded remark. It > was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People subjected year after > year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are going to crack > eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of forbidden > expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever > since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a > statement of independence and individuality. I hate the extremeness of > the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its members, > regardless of how they are feeling. > > > > But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let > ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our > abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get-even > attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the > sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here. > > > > I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a forum > that courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression and > sincere sharing of experiences -- the sort of things that would help > all of us heal the years we spent as victims. > > > > I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the > hell not, after all that we've been through? But even then, it's smart > to self-monitor and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 percent > full of barf and dogshit is going to turn off sensitive readers, > certainly women like me, who would otherwise participate in FFL. > > > > Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they just > need enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want to play the > policeman, but that's part of the role of a moderator, isn't it? > Sometimes policemen are needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If > people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing > moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going > through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps promote > a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch of > rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should have to rea
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We can all ignore what we want and I think > the people who attract foul language have pretty thick skin. I don't > see anyone getting dogged out without supporters jumping in. Lurky's POV. Here's the risk. You change the formula of coke, because this is what people say they want in interviews. But things don't always play out that way (Marketing Myopia -Harvard Case Study) You change the rules to conform to what Bronte thinks is more desireable, and what happens- - Bronte posts for a week and then moves on. Maybe checks in a little more often than she does now. You get some nice dialogue centering on "experiences", and then interest trails off. Heaven is nice, but as I understand it, it gets kinda dull. We are in middle earth where good and evil hold sway. Where karma plays out. So the FFL is imperfect? What else is new. So, WTF is wrong with some GD SELF DISCIPLINE. IGNORE the "trolls" as people like to call them. 35 posts a week means that people must AT LEAST be more disciplined in what they post. lurky > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
Other than a few personal battles here, I think you will find this an interesting, safe place to post. I haven't seen anyone getting what they don't give here. You set the tone by how you write and how you respond. You can get into bickering wars but you can also ignore them and interact with people who nourish you. You might find over time that some of the most intense posters have a valuable POV that makes the rough edges worth it. Or perhaps not. But either way it is up to you to set the tone of how you want to interact here. Many people here are ready to be kind and supportive. I hope you find them and enjoy this resource. I don't find ex-Tmers to be more negative than anyone else. It may not be as fluffy soft as the bunny crew, but there is plenty of heart on this board. Good luck! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. > > As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier to just get up and leave. That causes FFL to become a rather incestuous little group, unleavened by fresh viewpoints. > > And where does it leave the new visitors, often people disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast. And who wants that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already working through enough shit from their confusing years in the movement? > > Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a lot of us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to do that. We value the intelligence and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to participate in forums where they are dealt with violently. So we visit a while and move on. But where are we to go? Where can we go to talk and explore spiritual issues, if not in a chatroom supposedly devoted to spirituality? > > I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can become negative. For years we taught to "never entertain negativity," and the strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we would likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded remark. It was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People subjected year after year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are going to crack eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of forbidden expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a statement of independence and individuality. I hate the extremeness of the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its members, regardless of how they are feeling. > > But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get-even attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here. > > I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a forum that courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression and sincere sharing of experiences -- the sort of things that would help all of us heal the years we spent as victims. > > I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the hell not, after all that we've been through? But even then, it's smart to self-monitor and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 percent full of barf and dogshit is going to turn off sensitive readers, certainly women like me, who would otherwise participate in FFL. > > Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they just need enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want to play the policeman, but that's part of the role of a moderator, isn't it? Sometimes policemen are needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps promote a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch of rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should have to read and "judge on" every post. He has no time for that. But if someone observed an attacking email and complained to him, he could put the sender on suspension for a couple of weeks. How hard is that? > > The question here is if the "townspeople" of FFL want to have a
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
On Sep 7, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Although I've been more in agreement with the POV of "moving on" and not reading a post or poster I find offensive, after reading Ms. Baxter's message below, I'm convinced that FFL is significantly diminished if it mutes a voice like hers. Thank you for writing; hopefully we can figure this out; it's unfortunate that we have to "figure it out". I agree. But if you really believe this, there has to be some kind of discrimination. Discrimination = moderation in the world of email lists. Otherwise FFL just becomes alt.meditation.transcendental-lite. And honestly, it ain't that "lite", it's actually more "filling". As long as there are trolls--and many of the so-called trolls here are (I feel) important voices--the delicate voices will not speak. Given the moderation style here, I guess you should get used to never hearing all these wonderful people that really were the crowning beauty of the TMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
Although I've been more in agreement with the POV of "moving on" and not reading a post or poster I find offensive, after reading Ms. Baxter's message below, I'm convinced that FFL is significantly diminished if it mutes a voice like hers. Thank you for writing; hopefully we can figure this out; it's unfortunate that we have to "figure it out". Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. > > As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier to just get up and leave. That causes FFL to become a rather incestuous little group, unleavened by fresh viewpoints. > > And where does it leave the new visitors, often people disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast. And who wants that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already working through enough shit from their confusing years in the movement? > > Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a lot of us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to do that. We value the intelligence and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to participate in forums where they are dealt with violently. So we visit a while and move on. But where are we to go? Where can we go to talk and explore spiritual issues, if not in a chatroom supposedly devoted to spirituality? > > I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can become negative. For years we taught to "never entertain negativity," and the strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we would likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded remark. It was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People subjected year after year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are going to crack eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of forbidden expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a statement of independence and individuality. I hate the extremeness of the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its members, regardless of how they are feeling. > > But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get-even attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here. > > I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a forum that courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression and sincere sharing of experiences -- the sort of things that would help all of us heal the years we spent as victims. > > I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the hell not, after all that we've been through? But even then, it's smart to self-monitor and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 percent full of barf and dogshit is going to turn off sensitive readers, certainly women like me, who would otherwise participate in FFL. > > Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they just need enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want to play the policeman, but that's part of the role of a moderator, isn't it? Sometimes policemen are needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps promote a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch of rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should have to read and "judge on" every post. He has no time for that. But if someone observed an attacking email and complained to him, he could put the sender on suspension for a couple of weeks. How hard is that? > > The question here is if the "townspeople" of FFL want to have a policeman, for their own security and greater freedom. Freedom in the long run: to talk deeper, more vulnerably, more sincerely than they presently can when they have to write each post with their guard up, or when they don't feel free to write at all. If the group does want this, Rick or someone else needs to step up to the plate. > > I belong to another chat room. It's about c
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
The basis of civility is to allow the perceived other the same thing that every one seems to want. Allow other the same freedom you demand for yourself without insisting you are absolutely perfectly right and have the perfect Truth. You are free to say what you will. I am free to respond and state my POV or my take. It only gets nasty here when ownership of what is RIGHT comes into the view. So What!. They are free to say what they will and I am free to ignore them. I download all of the postings via email and then immediately sort them by poster. Like Barry and others my read time is down to about 10 to 20% of the traffic. Some have nothing to say that interest me so why bother. If a miracle happens then someone else will surely pick up on it and I will read it in another posters reply. Works for me. Civility comes out of mutual respect and a desire to form a community. Lacking those two essential elements civil speech and behavior are not going to happen and can not be legislated. If there are some posters here who are not interested in mutual respect and a desire to form community it might be a suggestion to move on. We can determine who is willing and who is not. The group Conscience will know and the group will figure out how to handle it. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
> How many folks don't post because of trolls? > You failed to define what a troll is. Exactly who are you calling a troll? I've been posting here since message number 724. You are supposed to read the messages here BEFORE you post your own, Sir. A Total Knowledge Base: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/724 The term 'Internet Troll' is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied by those who are ignorant of Internet etiquette. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Willytex Date: Thurs, Sep 8 2005 11:32 pm Subject: TMer Troll Alert! http://tinyurl.com/2f4dln Willytex is a troll and chronic, vicious, compulsive liar. Nothing he says is to be trusted. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.meditation From: Judy Stein Date: Tues, May 2 2006 7:10 pm Subject: Re: Maharishi Punkers http://tinyurl.com/22w72y
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
How many folks don't post because of trolls? How many of these "almost posters" would be wonderful online thinkers if they weren't "sensitive" to troll attacks? 1000 members here...could be many who lurk but do not post because of troll fears. Maybe those sensitive to attacks are just the very sort of persons who could be "delicate" enough to help us explore the gentle nuances that trolls are generally incapable of appreciating. We may not know what we're missing -- whom have the trolls have "scared off?" I've gone dark and I've gone light. Not being obviously enlightened, I'm identifying with both sides of me when they "hold sway," but I think I'm "safely" detached from most of my words, just because I write for hours every day and I am, ahem, well, I feel I am an artist with them and that I'm trying for cognitive and emotional "effects" in the minds of readers. I'm not screaming my lungs out and stomping baby ducks under my desk when I type the words, ya know? I have a common real world life without rants and fist fights and constant skirmishing. Here, I'm forced to be a gladiator even if I merely want to talk about gladiolas. My use of swear words and emotionally triggering concepts is done purposefully. I have bigass feelings when I'm attacked in public, and when the other posters here are merely mildly amused at my distress when I am slandered, well, I feel I have to show them how easily they too can be offended by language and symbols. That's what I'm talking about: the overt attempts by trolls to produce negative feelings inside nervous systems. If others are too "scarred and calloused" by this long-allowed-here abuse to recognize my travail, then maybe my over the top responses to trolls can reawaken in the passive-types a sense of how much trolls are guilty of a vile and arbitrary effrontery if I parody, indulge and use the same "weaponry." I think of myself as a "good guy," so yeah, I'm cringing when I click on the send button knowing what a foul mouthed angsty mess of puke I have sent. But I'm fighting fire with fire. As a true believer for decades, I know the cost of being passive when trolls and bureaucrats get away with, well, EVERYTHING. Not me anymore. If you want to lay down in life and, in some twisted sense of being democratic, let trolls besmirch every sort of goodness that could happen here, well, don't expect me to think you're "being fair." I see you being "me" when I was taking it up the yin and preventing myself from letting my yang have at the rapists. In the real world, these trolls would not have the guts to say a single one of their crappy thoughts aloud without risking a broken nose. Me neither, but here, I'm expected to let any skank or simp spit on me and my mind and my concepts with ad hominems and gross aggravations. And, if I don't lay down for this abuse and if I don't have a smug smile of beyondness when trolls attack, then I'm not being a gentleman, and I'M THE ONE SPOILING THE ATMOSPHERE HERE? Now that's funny! In the film, Johnny Dangerously they have this character who is constantly swearing but he cannot speak English very well, so he's saying things like "fargin ice holes" and "cork suckers." Very funny stuff actually. But let me tell you, if only swear words are forbidden, why I and any troll can run circles around that intent and attack back without the least need for a $*%# or a &[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't even need to speak real English to get my point across. "Judas ewe pig or ant slug. Eye swill sew stump yon yule aft jew tack meat." I don't have to sepll crroctly eether. No end to the ways to cheat any system. THAT'S what the trolls know. They can get folks angry no matter the rules. That's why we need a priest or warden or cop to see the EMOTIONAL crime no matter the garb or packaging. I volunteer to be the cop. And let's what happens. If I abuse my role, then I'm tossed. But if Fairfield Life becomes an Eden of Conceptual Delights, if posters come forward with their hearts on their sleeves, I'll consider it a victory. Again, who here would post a love poem or pictures of their families etc.? Who would put their precious parts on display here? I would if there was a good cop on the corner bracing the punks against the wall and letting them know what for and how to conduct themselves in our decent neighborhood. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few > rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if we reach > a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some > feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing it > in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually > feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling > polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the > democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if we can > collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps > we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something we have > all agreed to. > Thanks for offering to consider ways to improve FFL. Happy Birthday, FFL ! Respect and decency are wonderful, and although those qualities are lacking in many posts, I think the 35 - post per week limit has helped tremendously to improve the tone and quailty of discussion. I don't relish the idea of seeing debate on whether a poster deserves to be banned, should be banned, shouldn't have been banned, would have been banned had 'fair' decision-making been employed, yada, yada, yada Such debate is inevitable with a subjective standard, and that debate would raise the 'noise' level and be counter-productive. Thank you for instituting the 35-post per week limit, but please refrain from instituting subjective means of determining decency, respect, or abuse.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
I am not a fan of banning foul language but I also didn't dig the insulting "Slut" title. At first I was going to change it before posting on it but then I remembered the SNL reference from Dan A, "Jane you ignorant slut". so I left it alone. But any of us can change the title on personally insulting titles when we respond, and I think next time I will. But as far as what is written below the title, I vote, let it rip. We can all ignore what we want and I think the people who attract foul language have pretty thick skin. I don't see anyone getting dogged out without supporters jumping in. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few > rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if we reach > a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some > feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing it > in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually > feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling > polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the > democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if we can > collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps > we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something we have > all agreed to. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > 3:18 PM >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:12 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior The easiest way -- and in my opinion the most effec- tive way -- to deal with people whose language or whose intent or whose actions or opinions piss you off is to IGNORE THEM. If they've established a history of getting under your skin, JUST DON'T LET THEM. This is what I do, and have suggested several times as a solution. I like this suggestion from New Morning: “I do however support, in the guidelines, a ban on profanities hurled against someone. But not used for emphasis -- ocassionally. Thus "You F*ckhead!" would be against the guidelines. "Thats f*cking awsome" -- used occasionally, would be OK.” What do others think of this? Part of the issue is, where do we draw the line? If one of our participants were black, and others were hurling racial slurs at him, I think we would all agree that those people should be censored or banned. Same with gay bashing. These are now social taboos in our culture. But insulting people individually is not taboo, just poor manners. How civil do we want our little FFL society to be? Some valuable contributors have left because of the incivility. You say, “I would *not* advise any form of "moral guidelines" here, because they would be subjec- tive and by definition imposed upon those who don't agree with them, and they would force Rick or the other moderators to become "cops." I would not wish that on them.” And I keep expressing the same sentiment. You also made the point that one can be nastier without using expletives than another might be in using them. Bob Brigante responded to my initial post in this thread with, “Piss off, you idiot.” However Bob meant it, I interpreted that as a friendly, funny response. Taking any sort of action on this issue requires a subjective judgment, and I just don’t know if my subjectivity is objective enough to do that. I’m willing to try something, if there’s a consensus, but so far I don’t think there is. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 3:18 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
I use a similar heuristic as you in sorting through posts. Some people I read >90% of their posts, Some <10% -- usually only indirectly -- that is, I may read them if they show up unsnipped in someone elses posts. Some are 50/50. And I may read everything on an interesting thread. For example, I would read what Shemp writes on a movie thread, but I ignore most of his other posts. A thought extension (and maybe you said this and I missed it): Beyond just ignoring someone, explicitly post your lists, perhaps as "percentages lists" (x y and z are on my >90% list) -- stating rough estimated percentages are useful because usually I don't read everything / nothing of any particular person. And some are 50/50. Its not black and white. And of course if someone is not even on your list, positive or negative, clearly they did not register much in your awareness. "Favorites" are no necessaraly an applauding confirmation of someones posts. I often read some people (50% of the time) because they create such interesting nuances of logical errors, cognitive dissonance (in me) and cognitive errors -- they they spur me to write something that is clarifying -- to me -- "Y"MMV. Lists provide feedback to people. If someone is on a mjority of peoples >10% list, it may cause them to ponderm and reconsidr their style and content more. >90% may encourage good posts. Here is my quick list, off the top of my head, -- I may extend and revise it later. 100% Dana >90 % Rick Marek Curtis Empty Bill (80%) Mark M. LB Phil G. > 70% Judy Barry Edg Sal Ken H. Alex Cliff 50% Vaj Bob B. Bhairtu Do.Flex Jim F. Peter Rory Tom Dixon Card >10% Shemp Off Nab RW Goodman Gimbel BillyG. Peter K. (never) Jeff Cook Leeds Ron --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and > > all but a few rebels have appreciated and adhered to the > > guideline. How about if we reach a similar consensus > > regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some feedback > > on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either > > observing it in others, being the brunt of it, or even > > dishing it out? Do you actually feel better after verbally > > abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling polluted? If > > I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate > > the democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish > > on FFL. But if we can collectively agree upon some basic > > standards of respect and decency, perhaps we'll all feel > > motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the > > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating > > something we have all agreed to. > > I'll weigh in on this one, gladly. > > This little break I just took from FFL taught me > a lot. I was moving, and thus didn't have much > time *to* read things here, so I got more discrim- > inative about it. Because I like to read posts in > the order in which they are made, not in threads, > I still like reading via the Web reader. But now > I go straight to the 'Messages' page, and just > scan down the list. And I find myself, after two > years or so here, "voting" not only with my Next > key but by never clicking on many messages in the > first place. > > There are about six posters here whom I have learned > I will *never* hear anything useful from. So why > bother? There are another six whom I read every word > they write. The rest I just scan the first few lines > and see if it's about a subject that interests me and > then react accordingly. As a result, my FFL reading > experience now takes me about five or ten minutes to > complete. No muss, no fuss, and no more getting lured > into draining discussions with vibe vampires who are > cruising for attention. > > As for the issue of "bad language," as a writer I > plead guilty to using it *intentionally* from time > to time to create a kind of Tantric cognitive dis- > sonance in the reader. For example, in the middle of > a glowing passage about some cool spiritual exper- > ience I'll throw in the adjective fuckin'. There is > a very real purpose in my doing this; the word is > NOT incompatible with the experience, and only the > belief that it IS somehow incompatible with higher > spiritual experience is IMO one of the reasons that > a lot of people aren't *having* higher experiences. > They have convinced themselves that some things and > some words are incompatible with enlightenment. Well, > nothing is, as far as I can tell. > > As for the "offending Subject header" that someone > was wailing about here, it was *clearly* a joke, a > reference to the olde Saturday Night Live skit with > Dan Ackroyd and "Jane, you ignorant slut" bantering > back and forth. To pretend to be uptight about that > is IMO to prove once and for all that one either has > no sense of humor or one is able to pretend not to > have one
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm all for rules > > I knew if I upped the heat in the kitchen something would budge. > > Rick -- you rejected my offering to impose an "oath" of "good > manners;" you said you didn't want to be a morality cop. > > "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone knows, right?>> No you were not. You're like that white guy that claims he only uses the word "nigger" to mean "stupid person", and that he is not a racist, and everyone should just accept whatever usage anyone cares to make up about words. Bitch' is not a poetical word, it is a degradation of women when used the way you used it, and most women hate it, and would only use it themselves in anger or hate. Maybe Judy doesn't care, but I do because I know why you use it. Because you attack the person, instead of the argument they are making, and that is offensive to me. (But you are correct, I was arrested a couple of times at an early age, but unlike the other 'boys' here, my development was not arrested as you say. It escaped the male-bonding mind cops) OffWorld > I was doing satire. And the word "bitch" is one of the most > poetically used words today. Judy is a fierce > warrior-warrioress-whatever. She's in with mostly boys (all arrested > in their developments at early ages) here and smacking them right and > left like she was as immune to karma as Mary Poppins, and I just felt > she should get some smacks back. She wages battles for years, and you > do not tell her to back off the negative, abusive, demeaning attitude, > and then, she, emboldened by the group passivity here, came at me for > no offense other than that I was following your "no abuse" rules > regarding Turq posts -- some of which thoroughly challenged my POVs. > > If you've changed your stance, maybe you could tell us how that > transition came about. Sorry, sorta, if it was in fact my rude > attempts to amp it all up and make it ridiculous enough to get folks > to move on this issue of "abusive trolls" here. Slick as they are > with lingo, trolls're all in emperor's togs when it comes to anyone > here seeing their energy, their reckless disregard for the tender > feeling level, their almost vampire-like feasting on any dissonance > they can stir up, their sheer psychic vandalism. > > I've contributed many a piece here that was holy in intent. Trying to > lay a little imagination down and take a risk here or there, open up a > bit, and yet, who can do anything subtle and ritammy when fire alarm > emotions are being toggled by stalking, insult-zombic, creepazoid > terrorists with kill-me-and-be-reduced-to-my-level divisive-bombs > strapped to their souls daring us all to boot them out of this small > universe and thus show the same impotency that these feral marauders > feel every second of their miserable existences. > > I mean, Ron is, like, HOLY compared to Judy. He's posting his heart, > but Judy's posting her gall bladder -- hence her dark bile ink. > > Turq posted like he was Hemmingway wandering an ancient town covered > with moss and dripping with culture, and some troll up and calls him a > drunk. I mean, what the hell is that shit, Rick? > > We all have egos that could soar to incredibility if we weren't all > armed to the teeth with shotguns aimed at anything that moves in the > heavens and calling it ready-to-roast duck no matter if swan or angel > crashes dead but sometimes only wounded at their feet. > > Yeah, gimme some rules. > > Edg > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few > > rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if > we reach > > a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some > > feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either > observing it > > in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you > actually > > feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling > > polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would > violate the > > democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if > we can > > collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, > perhaps > > we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be > playing the > > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something > we have > > all agreed to. > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > > 3:18 PM > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
On Sep 7, 2007, at 4:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone > knows, right? I was doing satire. And, let's face it...we've all seen the photograph she posted here. This woman couldn't be a slut if she tried. She could offer to pay people $1000 a pop to have sex with her and still never accumulate enough of them to qualify as a "slut." What an insensitive thing to say! Did you ever stop and think that maybe she looked better before the accident? No, it was clear from the get go that Edg was playin' with the old SNL line in a clever parody. I thought it was pretty fuckin' goddamn clever.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq posted like he was Hemmingway wandering an ancient town > covered with moss and dripping with culture, and some troll > up and calls him a drunk. I mean, what the hell is that shit, > Rick? Jealousy. Those who have convinced themselves that they can't be spiritual while enjoying the occasional glass of wine are *intensely* jealous of those who can. It's the same Protestant thang you see in celibates who rail about everyone around them thinking about sex all the time. It's *them* who are thinking of the things they've denied themselves, not the people they're dumping on. No biggie, Edg. Get *used* to it if you're going to continue writing about your spiritual experiences.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone > knows, right? I was doing satire. And, let's face it...we've all seen the photograph she posted here. This woman couldn't be a slut if she tried. She could offer to pay people $1000 a pop to have sex with her and still never accumulate enough of them to qualify as a "slut." Not only satire, *obvious* satire.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and > all but a few rebels have appreciated and adhered to the > guideline. How about if we reach a similar consensus > regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some feedback > on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either > observing it in others, being the brunt of it, or even > dishing it out? Do you actually feel better after verbally > abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling polluted? If > I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate > the democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish > on FFL. But if we can collectively agree upon some basic > standards of respect and decency, perhaps we'll all feel > motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating > something we have all agreed to. I'll weigh in on this one, gladly. This little break I just took from FFL taught me a lot. I was moving, and thus didn't have much time *to* read things here, so I got more discrim- inative about it. Because I like to read posts in the order in which they are made, not in threads, I still like reading via the Web reader. But now I go straight to the 'Messages' page, and just scan down the list. And I find myself, after two years or so here, "voting" not only with my Next key but by never clicking on many messages in the first place. There are about six posters here whom I have learned I will *never* hear anything useful from. So why bother? There are another six whom I read every word they write. The rest I just scan the first few lines and see if it's about a subject that interests me and then react accordingly. As a result, my FFL reading experience now takes me about five or ten minutes to complete. No muss, no fuss, and no more getting lured into draining discussions with vibe vampires who are cruising for attention. As for the issue of "bad language," as a writer I plead guilty to using it *intentionally* from time to time to create a kind of Tantric cognitive dis- sonance in the reader. For example, in the middle of a glowing passage about some cool spiritual exper- ience I'll throw in the adjective fuckin'. There is a very real purpose in my doing this; the word is NOT incompatible with the experience, and only the belief that it IS somehow incompatible with higher spiritual experience is IMO one of the reasons that a lot of people aren't *having* higher experiences. They have convinced themselves that some things and some words are incompatible with enlightenment. Well, nothing is, as far as I can tell. As for the "offending Subject header" that someone was wailing about here, it was *clearly* a joke, a reference to the olde Saturday Night Live skit with Dan Ackroyd and "Jane, you ignorant slut" bantering back and forth. To pretend to be uptight about that is IMO to prove once and for all that one either has no sense of humor or one is able to pretend not to have one *for the express purpose of dumping on someone*. The latter is the real issue. Some people use this forum and the other posters on it the way they'd use a punching bag, as a release for their tensions, their stress, their frustrations in life, and their general level of unhappiness and unfulfilment. These people are in PAIN, man. It just *reeks* off of them. And while part of me can feel compassion for someone who has to live with that level of PAIN, another part of me resents their attempts at self-medication by spreading the PAIN around and trying to make other people feel it, too. There are people here who seemingly LIVE to make others feel their PAIN. Who CARES what language they use when doing it? It's the INTENT that is the issue, not whether they do it in flamboyant Oscar Wilde prose or gutter language. These peoples' intent is to HURT, to make someone else feel bad -- about themselves, about their actions and thoughts and opinions, about everything. It's just the clearest and most obvious INTENT I've ever come across, especially when the behavior is repeated for weeks and months and years and in some cases, decades. That is just what these people DO. It appears to be all that they CAN do, because the people who do it the most often *also* rarely contribute anything original or creative themselves. Hurting people is their form *of* creativity and self expression. I'm tired of it. I'm voting with my discrimination and my Next key. I would *not* advise any form of "moral guidelines" here, because they would be subjec- tive and by definition imposed upon those who don't agree with them, and they would force Rick or the other moderators to become "cops." I would not wish that on them. The easiest way -- and in my opinion the most effec- tive way -- to deal with people whose language or whose intent or whose actions or opinions piss you off is to IGNORE THEM. I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've contributed many a piece here that was holy in intent. Trying to > lay a little imagination down and take a risk here or there, open up a > bit, and yet, who can do anything subtle and ritammy LOL! Took me about 5 seconds to understand(?) that word! Had you Rtn it like "Rtammy", guess I'd got it rite away... -- Rtambharaa tatra prajñaa?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
Let God decide. If a poster is struck down by lightening for saying something, then we know its against the laws of nature. We then make it an informal rule not to do that -- to protect innocent posters from being struck down by the wrath of the Lord. Or, for obnoxious posters, we lure him/her into doing that act -- so God will off them. I do however support, in the guidelines, a ban on profanities hurled against someone. But not used for emphasis -- ocassionally. Thus "You F*ckhead!" would be against the guidelines. "Thats f*cking awsome" -- used occasionally, would be OK. However, the guidelines already cover this in a general way -- and they are almost universally ignored and not enforced. So what good are rules -- we have some good ones on the books, if they are not enforced? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Duveyoung > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:16 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior > > > > I'm all for rules > > Put yourself in my shoes. How would you enforce civility without becoming a > dictator and without even having the time to read all the posts here? > Everyone feels that their perspective is more or less right, and I�m no > exception. And maybe it is, but it�s only a slice of the pie of all > possibilities. Would you feel objective and righteous enough to pass > judgment on all the posters here? Could you be sure your own biases and > moods weren�t coloring your judgment? Simple rules are easy to enforce, such > as �here�s a list of insulting words you can�t use in addressing one > another,� but when we get into having to judge whether people are coarsening > the atmosphere by being insufficiently polite and respectful, it becomes > impossible to manage. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > 3:18 PM >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:16 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior I'm all for rules Put yourself in my shoes. How would you enforce civility without becoming a dictator and without even having the time to read all the posts here? Everyone feels that their perspective is more or less right, and I’m no exception. And maybe it is, but it’s only a slice of the pie of all possibilities. Would you feel objective and righteous enough to pass judgment on all the posters here? Could you be sure your own biases and moods weren’t coloring your judgment? Simple rules are easy to enforce, such as “here’s a list of insulting words you can’t use in addressing one another,” but when we get into having to judge whether people are coarsening the atmosphere by being insufficiently polite and respectful, it becomes impossible to manage. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 3:18 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
I'm all for rules I knew if I upped the heat in the kitchen something would budge. Rick -- you rejected my offering to impose an "oath" of "good manners;" you said you didn't want to be a morality cop. "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone knows, right? I was doing satire. And the word "bitch" is one of the most poetically used words today. Judy is a fierce warrior-warrioress-whatever. She's in with mostly boys (all arrested in their developments at early ages) here and smacking them right and left like she was as immune to karma as Mary Poppins, and I just felt she should get some smacks back. She wages battles for years, and you do not tell her to back off the negative, abusive, demeaning attitude, and then, she, emboldened by the group passivity here, came at me for no offense other than that I was following your "no abuse" rules regarding Turq posts -- some of which thoroughly challenged my POVs. If you've changed your stance, maybe you could tell us how that transition came about. Sorry, sorta, if it was in fact my rude attempts to amp it all up and make it ridiculous enough to get folks to move on this issue of "abusive trolls" here. Slick as they are with lingo, trolls're all in emperor's togs when it comes to anyone here seeing their energy, their reckless disregard for the tender feeling level, their almost vampire-like feasting on any dissonance they can stir up, their sheer psychic vandalism. I've contributed many a piece here that was holy in intent. Trying to lay a little imagination down and take a risk here or there, open up a bit, and yet, who can do anything subtle and ritammy when fire alarm emotions are being toggled by stalking, insult-zombic, creepazoid terrorists with kill-me-and-be-reduced-to-my-level divisive-bombs strapped to their souls daring us all to boot them out of this small universe and thus show the same impotency that these feral marauders feel every second of their miserable existences. I mean, Ron is, like, HOLY compared to Judy. He's posting his heart, but Judy's posting her gall bladder -- hence her dark bile ink. Turq posted like he was Hemmingway wandering an ancient town covered with moss and dripping with culture, and some troll up and calls him a drunk. I mean, what the hell is that shit, Rick? We all have egos that could soar to incredibility if we weren't all armed to the teeth with shotguns aimed at anything that moves in the heavens and calling it ready-to-roast duck no matter if swan or angel crashes dead but sometimes only wounded at their feet. Yeah, gimme some rules. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few > rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if we reach > a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some > feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing it > in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually > feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling > polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the > democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if we can > collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps > we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something we have > all agreed to. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > 3:18 PM >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few > rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if we reach > a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some > feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing it > in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually > feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling > polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the > democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if we can > collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps > we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something we have > all agreed to. * Piss off, you idiot.
