Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. If Doug starts to censor negative opinions of TM, you're not just going to hear complaints from the TM critics; TM supporters won't stand for it either. Me: When I was studying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu we used to use a trick to get someone to extend their arm so we could lock it and win the match by forcing them to tap out. When we got on top of them we would push on their throat. This would cause a reflex from them to try to push us away by extending their arm. So to attack the arm we went for the neck. This is what made is such an intellectual sport, like body chess. You and I are interpreting what happened that lead to Barry and Michael getting the boot. By hitting Barry with an outrageous accusation of violating the Yahoo guidelines by criticizing David Lynch, Barry reflexively extended his arm. It was an outrageous claim and a trumped up charge and it inspired an emotional response from Barry about Buck's unsuitability as a moderator in the context of an appeal to Rick to stop him before he did what he ended up doing. NEW MATERIAL STARTS HERE: A: Gee, and this after your lecture about not getting emotional when badmouthed. Me: I am not sure what you are referring to here. I didn't say that Barry was forced to react in that way, it was his choice. I was making a case that it was predictable given the outrageous charges of saying something bad about Lynch. Buck and Barry know how each other tend to post. A: Barry could have made his objections known with civility; he chose not to. Me: We agree on this. A: Sorry, but reflex doesn't cut it in this context, and you wouldn't propose or accept it as an excuse for someone whose views you didn't share losing it on an Internet forum. Me: If you are calling me on the imprecision of the analogy if we focus on the idea of a reflex, implying that Barry HAD to get all uppity with his new master, I concede your point. The analogy is not good as stated. And if by implication my point unfairly made it seem as if Barry was forced, that would be wrong. I believe it was calculated either by foresight or opportunism by Buck who has had a goal for years to clean Barry off his forum. The analogy realigns again if I include that we trained ourselves to have unnatural reactions so we did not thrust out our arms when someone pushed on our necks. Then we learned how to bait our opponent by sticking out our arm and when they predictably went for the arm, we cold reverse the position by knowing where they would move. The exchange between Barry and Buck had all the elements of two opponents giving their best move. And since ref Rick wasn't looking, Buck won the match. (I get it that you would disagree with that parting shot.) END It is not as if Buck has not been very clear about his view of speaking ill of the TM teaching. He has spent years and pretty tirelessly promoted the idea that he views it as on a par with terrorism. After having labeled people who left TM as quitters and other terms mostly used in religious contexts, he has weighed in on free speech. He is not a fan. Drone strikes were used as images to express his opinion about apostates. So it kind of makes sense that people who were in his target demo would feel the laser sight, and low and behold, (lo and behold = look and see) he got the two most vocal critics of TM off the site. Coincidence? Not for me. The two most vocal were also the two most uncivil. Some of the worst offenders of this new policy moved to another site before we could really test if this rule would be selectively enforced or not. Actually the three who were bounced did. None of the others who have shown up there have been big offenders. (Well, maybe Edg.) Salyavin is still here as well as there. So with all the civility appropriate to the new FFL: I believe that your opportunity to stand up for the principle of free speech here was missed in your sense of personal satisfaction that an old rival got canned. Yeah, you said that before. Wishful thinking. Too bad you haven't got a better argument than one based on mind-reading.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. If Doug starts to censor negative opinions of TM, you're not just going to hear complaints from the TM critics; TM supporters won't stand for it either. Me: When I was studying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu we used to use a trick to get someone to extend their arm so we could lock it and win the match by forcing them to tap out. When we got on top of them we would push on their throat. This would cause a reflex from them to try to push us away by extending their arm. So to attack the arm we went for the neck. This is what made is such an intellectual sport, like body chess. You and I are interpreting what happened that lead to Barry and Michael getting the boot. By hitting Barry with an outrageous accusation of violating the Yahoo guidelines by criticizing David Lynch, Barry reflexively extended his arm. It was an outrageous claim and a trumped up charge and it inspired an emotional response from Barry about Buck's unsuitability as a moderator in the context of an appeal to Rick to stop him before he did what he ended up doing. Gee, and this after your lecture about not getting emotional when badmouthed. Barry could have made his objections known with civility; he chose not to. Sorry, but reflex doesn't cut it in this context, and you wouldn't propose or accept it as an excuse for someone whose views you didn't share losing it on an Internet forum. It is not as if Buck has not been very clear about his view of speaking ill of the TM teaching. He has spent years and pretty tirelessly promoted the idea that he views it as on a par with terrorism. After having labeled people who left TM as quitters and other terms mostly used in religious contexts, he has weighed in on free speech. He is not a fan. Drone strikes were used as images to express his opinion about apostates. So it kind of makes sense that people who were in his target demo would feel the laser sight, and low and behold, (lo and behold = look and see) he got the two most vocal critics of TM off the site. Coincidence? Not for me. The two most vocal were also the two most uncivil. Some of the worst offenders of this new policy moved to another site before we could really test if this rule would be selectively enforced or not. Actually the three who were bounced did. None of the others who have shown up there have been big offenders. (Well, maybe Edg.) Salyavin is still here as well as there. So with all the civility appropriate to the new FFL: I believe that your opportunity to stand up for the principle of free speech here was missed in your sense of personal satisfaction that an old rival got canned. Yeah, you said that before. Wishful thinking. Too bad you haven't got a better argument than one based on mind-reading. Your view requires you to ignore what Buck has already written about ad nauseam as the prelude to how he has actually used his new found power. It does not so require unless one leads to the other, which it hasn't so far. As I said, if Doug starts banning people for their negative opinions of TM rather than incivility, you'll hear from TM supporters too. But he's innocent until proven guilty, by me. Seems to me you've convicted him before he's committed any crimes as moderator. From a previous discussion of ours, I was able to locate the email from Rick where he states clearly that Buck had been bugging him for years to let him clean up the group. All the time he was posting those tirades about critics being terrorists he was bugging Rick to implement the very plan he has carried out. Rick was concerned that Buck would show up instead of Doug. Rick told me that Buck would be moderating as Doug, not Buck. This before it was official. I believe we also disagree on which one is now on FFL. As an expert in language forms yourself, I am surprised that you refer to him by a different name You mean, his real name, the one he's been posting under. considering his use of the same tortured language style that Buck was infamous for using. Doug's language style has always been tortured (although it's not as bad as you pretend) whether he was appearing as Buck or himself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind of incivility on their groups these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. I think I'm pretty comfortable with the guidelines as they are clearly or not clearly delineated here. I know for one thing that a whole bunch of people feel a whole lot more comfortable writing posts at FFL since you took over as moderator and asked some of the members, who were consistently throwing mud and rotten fruit at others, to leave. I'm just tired of continually having to wash my face and clothes after posting here and now that the need for that has vanished it is way better, for me. All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one. Heckled and humiliated? Throwing mud and fruit? We were reading different forums. No, you accused me of doing the same with reference to Xeno. You just don't recognize it when the posters you like do it to others. This is what bugs me the most - the hypocrisy. When your friends sling shit around it is well-reasoned arguments, when others do it they are teenaged girls mimicking what goes on at FB. You have a serious double standard for such a scientific guy, Sal. I read a lot of well argued counter arguments to the TM dogma. TM claims to be a science, therefore it gets criticised. That's what science is, people arguing until they reach a consensus based on the evidence. Here is what you still don't understand about me. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says or thinks about TM. It is often a post that has dick-all to do with TM that I usually find most boorish and that is, to be exact, the posts that get all personal and repetitive and twisted that consciously misrepresent and falsify what others are saying. I resent the trollish, dickish posts that people like your buddy bawee was notorious for. I don't, and most others here included, did not have a problem with dissenting viewpoints about TM and not one person who has been chucked out of here was done so because they said something mean about TM. It is about personal space and mutual civilized respect
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. So you say. you aren't an apostate It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. Talking of incivility; I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says or thinks about TM. It is often a post that has dick-all to do with TM that I usually find most boorish and that is, to be exact, the posts that get all personal and repetitive and twisted that consciously misrepresent and falsify what others are saying. I resent the trollish, dickish posts that people like your buddy bawee was notorious for One more stroke for bawee from Sal. He might even take this as an enabling equivalent of a vitamin pill.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind of incivility on their groups these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote : On 07/09/2015 08:33 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com mailto:curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Heh, that's what I said in a post before I read this one. People sit around in corporate boardrooms and dream this stuff up because the lawyers and marketing demand it. There was probably a tug-a-war between the more rational and idealistic in that meeting and probably a more senior manager reminding them they were to create suggestions not rules. Those here who have sat in corporate boardrooms know what I mean. :) Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind of incivility on their groups these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. I think I'm pretty comfortable with the guidelines as they are clearly or not clearly delineated here. I know for one thing that a whole bunch of people feel a whole lot more comfortable writing posts at FFL since you took over as moderator and asked some of the members, who were consistently throwing mud and rotten fruit at others, to leave. I'm just tired of continually having to wash my face and clothes after posting here and now that the need for that has vanished it is way better, for me. All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, You could have posted it here rather than make us look for it, but here it is for discussion as you've mentioned it: I would note that there's an important distinction between unstressing and amplifying your crap by giving it everyones attention. In the first, purification creates release that dissipates. Best if you can avoid catching others in the flak but not a big deal. The energy is clearing. In the second, the opposite is happening. The energy is being built up and spread to others. There are karmic consequences for that and doing it online gives us the potential to create much larger consequences. If there is no transcending, there is no unstressing going on. It's just venting, not purification. Unless you're really unattached (energetically transparent), hanging around in that energy is like bathing in energetic pollution. I suspect its partly why the silence instruction came down for flying. Some people were investing in it. I can't see how this is relevant or are you blaming people for not meditating? Not everyone sees things the way you do, to claim that people here were exploitatively trying to inflict personal emotional hurt is preposterous. You have to be quite some way into movement mythology to accept this and even further in to want to live in a world where no one has any strong opinions. People get ratty occasionally, get over it. The most dysfunctionally aggressive people I ever met were all TM teachers. This place was a model of sanity and restraint compared to the last centre I lived in. Go figure. Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind of incivility on their groups these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. Are you deliberately making your prose impenetrable? It reads like you're embarrassed about what you're trying to say and are puffing it up with loads of grandiose allusions. Be yourself, let it flow. A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. Nobody here - or over on the new FFL - is uncomfortable with anything the TMO has ever done. As I said in my post on the pundits, it's got to change because it doesn't work. You will work it out. Blaming people like me for pointing out the shortcomings of your belief system is NOT emotional abuse. This place is predominantly for the discussion of TM and the organisation. ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. You've kind of stacked the deck in your favour there haven't you? We could say that your robotic schtick here is a form of NVC because you deny us a human face to relate to. Why don't you drop it and show us what a nice guy you are? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 07/09/2015 08:33 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind of incivility on their groups these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. I think I'm pretty comfortable with the guidelines as they are clearly or not clearly delineated here. I know for one thing that a whole bunch of people feel a whole lot more comfortable writing posts at FFL since you took over as moderator and asked some of the members, who were consistently throwing mud and rotten fruit at others, to leave. I'm just tired of continually having to wash my face and clothes after posting here and now that the need for that has vanished it is way better, for me. All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one. Heckled and humiliated? Throwing mud and fruit? We were reading different forums. I read a lot of well argued counter arguments to the TM dogma. TM claims to be a science, therefore it gets criticised. That's what science is, people arguing until they reach a consensus based on the evidence. It's obvious that what Buck wants is a place where nobody can have a contrary opinion to what he believes in. That's why he uses terms like apostate. But you can';t live in a world like that, there has to be dissent or nobody ever learns anything, you all just sit there agreeing with each other. What sort of discussion forum is that for crissakes? But I can see why people are scared of it. And calling people like that trolls is a very poor effort. You got to think about what they say, not whether you personally agree with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. If Doug starts to censor negative opinions of TM, you're not just going to hear complaints from the TM critics; TM supporters won't stand for it either. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. (snippo) All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one. Heckled and humiliated? Throwing mud and fruit? We were reading different forums. No, you accused me of doing the same with reference to Xeno. You just don't recognize it when the posters you like do it to others. This is what bugs me the most - the hypocrisy. When your friends sling shit around it is well-reasoned arguments, when others do it they are teenaged girls mimicking what goes on at FB. You have a serious double standard for such a scientific guy, Sal. I read a lot of well argued counter arguments to the TM dogma. TM claims to be a science, therefore it gets criticised. That's what science is, people arguing until they reach a consensus based on the evidence. Here is what you still don't understand about me. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says or thinks about TM. It is often a post that has dick-all to do with TM that I usually find most boorish and that is, to be exact, the posts that get all personal and repetitive and twisted that consciously misrepresent and falsify what others are saying. I resent the trollish, dickish posts that people like your buddy bawee was notorious for. I don't, and most others here included, did not have a problem with dissenting viewpoints about TM and not one person who has been chucked out of here was done so because they said something mean about TM. It is about personal space and mutual civilized respect that can at least result in interesting and intelligent dialogue. Slinging shit around like its ones personal soapbox is a total drag. It's obvious that what Buck wants is a place where nobody can have a contrary opinion to what he believes in. That's why he uses terms like apostate. But you can';t live in a world like that, there has to be dissent or nobody ever learns anything, you all just sit there agreeing with each other. What sort of discussion forum is that for crissakes? But I can see why people are scared of it. Scared? Puhleeeze. No one is scared of Doug. No one's rights are being taken away by Doug. If he clears out this forum what is stopping anyone from taking their voice elsewhere? Nothing - as we can all see since we are three groups now. And calling people like that trolls is a very poor effort. You got to think about what they say, not whether you personally agree with it. Absolutely, I am calling bawee a troll because he is not interested in discussion. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with him, it is about his intention and delivery. He simply has a terrible need to be someone and FFL is all he's got. If you want to enable and stroke him then by all means do it but thankfully it can be at FFL2 and not here where there are others who have a far more valid and friendly desire to exchange ideas.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind of incivility on their groups these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. I think I'm pretty comfortable with the guidelines as they are clearly or not clearly delineated here. I know for one thing that a whole bunch of people feel a whole lot more comfortable writing posts at FFL since you took over as moderator and asked some of the members, who were consistently throwing mud and rotten fruit at others, to leave. I'm just tired of continually having to wash my face and clothes after posting here and now that the need for that has vanished it is way better, for me. All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one. Heckled and humiliated? Throwing mud and fruit? We were reading different forums. No, you accused me of doing the same with reference to Xeno. You just don't recognize it when the posters you like do it to others. This is what bugs me the most - the hypocrisy. When your friends sling shit around it is well-reasoned arguments, when others do it they are teenaged girls mimicking what goes on at FB. You have a serious double standard for such a scientific guy, Sal. I read a lot of well argued counter arguments to the TM dogma. TM claims to be a science, therefore it gets criticised. That's what science is, people arguing until they reach a consensus based on the evidence. Here is what you still don't understand about me. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says or thinks about TM. It is often a post that has dick-all to do with TM that I usually find most boorish and that is, to be exact, the posts that get all personal and repetitive and twisted that consciously misrepresent and falsify what others are saying. I resent the trollish, dickish posts that people like your buddy bawee was notorious for. I don't, and most others here included, did not have a problem with dissenting viewpoints about TM and not one person who has been chucked out of here was done so because they said something mean about TM. It is about personal space and mutual civilized respect that can at least result in interesting and intelligent dialogue. Slinging
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind of incivility on their groups these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC assumes in process that violent communication strategies can be unlearned. I think I'm pretty comfortable with the guidelines as they are clearly or not clearly delineated here. I know for one thing that a whole bunch of people feel a whole lot more comfortable writing posts at FFL since you took over as moderator and asked some of the members, who were consistently throwing mud and rotten fruit at others, to leave. I'm just tired of continually having to wash my face and clothes after posting here and now that the need for that has vanished it is way better, for me. All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one. Heckled and humiliated? Throwing mud and fruit? We were reading different forums. No, you accused me of doing the same with reference to Xeno. You just don't recognize it when the posters you like do it to others. This is what bugs me the most - the hypocrisy. When your friends sling shit around it is well-reasoned arguments, when others do it they are teenaged girls mimicking what goes on at FB. You have a serious double standard for such a scientific guy, Sal. I read a lot of well argued counter arguments to the TM dogma. TM claims to be a science, therefore it gets criticised. That's what science is, people arguing until they reach a consensus based on the evidence. Here is what you still don't understand about me. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says or thinks about TM. It is often a post that has dick-all to do with TM that I usually find most boorish and that is, to be exact, the posts that get all personal and repetitive and twisted that consciously misrepresent and falsify what others are saying. I resent the trollish, dickish posts that people like your buddy bawee was notorious for. I don't, and most others here included, did not have a problem with dissenting viewpoints about TM and not one person who has been chucked out of here was done so because they said something mean about TM. It is about personal space and mutual civilized respect that can at least result in interesting and intelligent dialogue. Slinging shit around like its ones personal soapbox is a total drag. It's
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. For a touch on an energetic component of this abuse see the post over at The_Peak, #4901 davidfb108 on spiritual violence, Me: We will have to agree to disagree about your conflating actual violence with people calling other people names on a public discussion site. Since you are a fan of old timey wisdom I refer you to the sutra whose rishi congnizer I don't remember. But his cognized truth I do remember. He said: Om shanti shanti shanti, sticksahey and stonesahey may break your bonesahey, but namesistah will never hurt youahey. This teaching applied to children who needed to learn that if you choose to give people the ability to hurt you with name calling you will forever be chasing people around going tisk tisk tisk, you must stop this because I can't handle people thinking of me in a way I can't control. And this is coming from a guy who has drawn as much attempts at emotional hurt as anyone here. I simply chose to see it for what it was, a statement about that person's values and not about me like most adults do who don't require everyone to be nice to them. I have benefited more intellectually from people who went after me with passion than people who high fived me for what I wrote here. We fundamentally disagree with what we find valuable here as evidenced by how you and I have chosen to use this site. As far as David's ideas about spiritual matters go, I don't see enough value in reading posts there, I have been there and done that and have rejected the premises of that world view completely. They have given up the ability to call BS on each other and that means that zero discrimination is going on IMO. Not my cup a tea. B: Like the Yahoo-group guidelines seeks to corral this kind o.f incivility on their groups Me:As I have pointed out, this is false. Yahoo has done nothing to impose these vague values on this site, this is all your doing. B: these millennials [meditators] I am watching working here are seeking to curb a type of coercive violence [oppression] they see held in communal mores and behavior that they well describe as patriarchal. These are not grade-schoolers. They are quite old enough with stake in it and do respect aspects of the spiritual community enough to hope to perpetuate instead basic needs [inalienable right?] for safety within the institutions for a communal well-being in what evidently is coming down to the very survival of the institutions of the movement themselves. Me: They have bought into PC culture that has ruined college campuses as a place for the free exchange of ideas. I do not share your enthusiasm for their wisdom. I work with kids of all ages. Do you know that the prefronal cortex is not even physically developed in adults till they are 24-26? As bright and creative as college kids are, they are physically as much kids as adults. Their values can be passionately held and still wrong, or they may be right. You might have to give examples to see if I agree on a case by case basis, but an appeal to them being old enough isn't going to help your argument without specifics. B: A lot is going on inside right now inside the various elements of what is TM. Maybe you are uncomfortable with process like this or against where it might lead. Me: I can't make any sense out of your first sentence. I have no idea if I am comfortable with what you are talking about. At first glance I would say that I am not confused about what is TM, I studied and practiced it a long time. B: But for instance well-intended millennials and others of goodwill in the larger community are actively bringing in work in inter-cultural tolerance with workshops and presentations for various elements of the community and promoting classes and workshops on campus in communal strategies and skill-sets like, NVC. Me: If you mean that MUM is dealing with their long history of gay bashing and racism I am all for it. After I graduated there was a campus gay purge, did you know about that? One of my classmate friends was one of the targets so I am very clear about that issue that came right from Maharishi's gay prejudices. I also witnessed the National Organization's attitude toward black people in DC when I was chairman so I know they need to give up their religiously traditional oppressive views, that would be good. B:Like with the Yahoo-groups guidelines this is all very much about the social sustainability of groups for individuals for good reasons. Me: Sorry to be repetitious but you are misrepresenting what the Yahoo guidelines are for in pursuit of your personal agenda here. B: ..NVC [nonviolent communication] begins by assuming that we are
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. If Doug starts to censor negative opinions of TM, you're not just going to hear complaints from the TM critics; TM supporters won't stand for it either. Me: When I was studying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu we used to use a trick to get someone to extend their arm so we could lock it and win the match by forcing them to tap out. When we got on top of them we would push on their throat. This would cause a reflex from them to try to push us away by extending their arm. So to attack the arm we went for the neck. This is what made is such an intellectual sport, like body chess. You and I are interpreting what happened that lead to Barry and Michael getting the boot. By hitting Barry with an outrageous accusation of violating the Yahoo guidelines by criticizing David Lynch, Barry reflexively extended his arm. It was an outrageous claim and a trumped up charge and it inspired an emotional response from Barry about Buck's unsuitability as a moderator in the context of an appeal to Rick to stop him before he did what he ended up doing. It is not as if Buck has not been very clear about his view of speaking ill of the TM teaching. He has spent years and pretty tirelessly promoted the idea that he views it as on a par with terrorism. After having labeled people who left TM as quitters and other terms mostly used in religious contexts, he has weighed in on free speech. He is not a fan. Drone strikes were used as images to express his opinion about apostates. So it kind of makes sense that people who were in his target demo would feel the laser sight, and low and behold, he got the two most vocal critics of TM off the site. Coincidence? Not for me. Some of the worst offenders of this new policy moved to another site before we could really test if this rule would be selectively enforced or not. So with all the civility appropriate to the new FFL: I believe that your opportunity to stand up for the principle of free speech here was missed in your sense of personal satisfaction that an old rival got canned.Your view requires you to ignore what Buck has already written about ad nauseam as the prelude to how he has actually used his new found power. From a previous discussion of ours, I was able to locate the email from Rick where he states clearly that Buck had been bugging him for years to let him clean up the group. All the time he was posting those tirades about critics being terrorists he was bugging Rick to implement the very plan he has carried out. Rick was concerned that Buck would show up instead of Doug. I believe we also disagree on which one is now on FFL. As an expert in language forms yourself, I am surprised that you refer to him by a different name considering his use of the same tortured language style that Buck was infamous for using. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, not conflating what was evident that some people posting here were exploitatively seeking to inflict methodical and personal emotional hurt on people using a Yahoo-group [FFL]. (snippo) All this talk about personal freedoms being taken away is balderdash and highly melodramatic. And what I'm getting now, is that Doug is not so interested in controlling (via the Yahoo guidelines) the actual content but is more interested in creating a space where those who want to contribute can do so without getting heckled or humiliated or being subsequently misrepresented as a means to intimidate. The trolls trying to disguise themselves as free thinkers are actually doing more to take away anyone's freedom of speech than the moderator. If I get canned at some point, then so be it. It is not important as some personal liberty denied that I was no longer allowed to post at FFL, of all places. I have a life and it doesn't rely on my posting status here remaining intact for it to be a full one. Heckled and humiliated? Throwing mud and fruit? We were reading different forums. No, you accused me of doing the same with reference to Xeno. You just don't recognize it when the posters you like do it to others. This is
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. So you say. you aren't an apostate It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. Talking of incivility; I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says or thinks about TM. It is often a post that has dick-all to do with TM that I usually find most boorish and that is, to be exact, the posts that get all personal and repetitive and twisted that consciously misrepresent and falsify what others are saying. I resent the trollish, dickish posts that people like your buddy bawee was notorious for
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. So you say. you aren't an apostate As Willytex would say (even though he didn't know what it meant): Non sequitur. The notion would be imaginary whether I was or wasn't an apostate. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. Talking of incivility; (Says salyavin, carefully avoiding the point.) Barry's gone because of his own massive incivility and misrepresentation. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says or thinks about TM. It is often a post that has dick-all to do with TM that I usually find most boorish and that is, to be exact, the posts that get all personal and repetitive and twisted that consciously misrepresent and falsify what others are saying. I resent the trollish, dickish posts that people like your buddy bawee was notorious for
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : You should do yourself a favour and drop this Bawee nonsense, you are a grown up human right? Doesn't it remind you of one of your best FFL pals always referring to The_Peak as The_Leak? (He's still doing it on FFL2.) BTW, speaking of The_Peak, another imaginary notion salyavin and Curtis are fond of is that there is no disagreement permitted there. In fact, there's plenty of it (see, for example, the recent discussions of crop circles). Apparently it's hard for some to recognize disagreement as such when it's expressed with civility.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : You should do yourself a favour and drop this Bawee nonsense, you are a grown up human right? Doesn't it remind you of one of your best FFL pals always referring to The_Peak as The_Leak? (He's still doing it on FFL2.) I must admit that leaves me utterly devastated. I'd better go tell him he's not my bestest fwend any more... BTW, speaking of The_Peak, another imaginary notion salyavin and Curtis are fond of is that there is no disagreement permitted there. In fact, there's plenty of it (see, for example, the recent discussions of crop circles). Apparently it's hard for some to recognize disagreement as such when it's expressed with civility. LOL, is Nabby still banging his drum for the Space Brothers? Good for him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Your view requires you to ignore what Buck has already written about ad nauseam as the prelude to how he has actually used his new found power. It does not so require unless one leads to the other, which it hasn't so far. Ooopsie-Judy, got tangled up in my own rhetoric there. Let me try it again: IF Doug starts using his new found power to get rid of people on the basis of their negative opinions of TM, THEN what he has already written about becomes germane. If he sticks to what Rick authorized him to do, then what he's already written about is irrelevant. My view does not require me to ignore what he's already written about, but it doesn't require me to consider it unless it leads to actual suppression of negative opinions.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. So you say. you aren't an apostate As Willytex would say (even though he didn't know what it meant): Non sequitur. The notion would be imaginary whether I was or wasn't an apostate. No Willytex didn't get a single one right that I ever saw, nor did he post ever one relevant link that I followed, but I wasn't an obsessive reader of his posts so I'll give him benefit of the doubt. But the reason you used it is because I didn't explain any further what I meant. I am what Buck would call an apostate the word is ridiculous in the context of a debate on FFL, and belongs to heavily religious societies like Saudi Arabia who take such a dim view of it they will cut your head off. Yeah, I know Buck isn't actually threatening violence but the constantly heavy tone of these allusions left us - me anyway - in no doubt about what he thinks of the way things are going round here and what needs to be done to sort it out to his satisfaction. So yes, I'm sensitive to the fact that he'd be happier if I wasn't here and it isn't like we don't have recent examples of people getting canned on what can only be described as technicalities. Though how I survived getting ditched the last few weeks is a mystery to me. Maybe my cute and cuddly personality shines through even when I'm angry? Or maybe he appreciates my comments on the TMO and things like the pundits and the new mental health improvements? I mean them seriously you know but he never gets back to me. I want a reformation not because I'm still involved but because the technologies they sell on the back of the beliefs they sold previously cost a lot of my friends a lot of money, and they get zilch back. I'm a crusader for justice you see. That's one of the reasons anyway. Another is that I like talking about a wild period in my life and think I've got a valid opinion about some of the more contraversial aspects of it. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. Talking of incivility; (Says salyavin, carefully avoiding the point.) Not really.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : It's quite amazing that both salyavin and Curtis, intelligent as they are, are still complaining loudly about the imaginary notion that Doug is out to ban people who express negative opinions of TM. It doesn't matter how many people tell them what Ann does below (highlighted in red); they simply can't hear it: The problem on FFL has not been criticism of TM, it's been gross incivility and misrepresentation, primarily by TM critics toward TM supporters. That's what Doug was appointed by Rick to correct, and so far that's what he's done by bouncing three of the guilty parties. If Doug starts to censor negative opinions of TM, you're not just going to hear complaints from the TM critics; TM supporters won't stand for it either. Me: When I was studying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu we used to use a trick to get someone to extend their arm so we could lock it and win the match by forcing them to tap out. When we got on top of them we would push on their throat. This would cause a reflex from them to try to push us away by extending their arm. So to attack the arm we went for the neck. This is what made is such an intellectual sport, like body chess. You and I are interpreting what happened that lead to Barry and Michael getting the boot. By hitting Barry with an outrageous accusation of violating the Yahoo guidelines by criticizing David Lynch, Barry reflexively extended his arm. It was an outrageous claim and a trumped up charge and it inspired an emotional response from Barry about Buck's unsuitability as a moderator in the context of an appeal to Rick to stop him before he did what he ended up doing. Gee, and this after your lecture about not getting emotional when badmouthed. Barry could have made his objections known with civility; he chose not to. Sorry, but reflex doesn't cut it in this context, and you wouldn't propose or accept it as an excuse for someone whose views you didn't share losing it on an Internet forum. It is not as if Buck has not been very clear about his view of speaking ill of the TM teaching. He has spent years and pretty tirelessly promoted the idea that he views it as on a par with terrorism. After having labeled people who left TM as quitters and other terms mostly used in religious contexts, he has weighed in on free speech. He is not a fan. Drone strikes were used as images to express his opinion about apostates. So it kind of makes sense that people who were in his target demo would feel the laser sight, and low and behold, (lo and behold = look and see) he got the two most vocal critics of TM off the site. Coincidence? Not for me. The two most vocal were also the two most uncivil. Some of the worst offenders of this new policy moved to another site before we could really test if this rule would be selectively enforced or not. Actually the three who were bounced did. None of the others who have shown up there have been big offenders. (Well, maybe Edg.) Salyavin is still here as well as there. So with all the civility appropriate to the new FFL: I believe that your opportunity to stand up for the principle of free speech here was missed in your sense of personal satisfaction that an old rival got canned. Yeah, you said that before. Wishful thinking. Too bad you haven't got a better argument than one based on mind-reading. Your view requires you to ignore what Buck has already written about ad nauseam as the prelude to how he has actually used his new found power. It does not so require unless one leads to the other, which it hasn't so far. As I said, if Doug starts banning people for their negative opinions of TM rather than incivility, you'll hear from TM supporters too. But he's innocent until proven guilty, by me. Seems to me you've convicted him before he's committed any crimes as moderator. From a previous discussion of ours, I was able to locate the email from Rick where he states clearly that Buck had been bugging him for years to let him clean up the group. All the time he was posting those tirades about critics being terrorists he was bugging Rick to implement the very plan he has carried out. Rick was concerned that Buck would show up instead of Doug. I believe we also disagree on which one is now on FFL. As an expert in language forms yourself, I am surprised that you refer to him by a different name You mean, his real name, the one he's been posting under. considering his use of the same tortured language style that Buck was infamous for using. Doug's language style has always been tortured (although it's not as bad as you pretend) whether he was appearing as Buck or himself. That isn't what makes the difference. Rick has not authorized Doug to clean up the group by banning folks because of their negative opinions of TM, but rather
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why Jerry Seinfeld (see meditator reference so it must be good kids) said he doesn't perform on college campuses anymore. This line made my veins run with ice water: Buck: looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. Me: This is on the campus with a committee discussing actionable remedy for free speech if they detect micro-inequalities in what you have said. Am I really the lone voice in the wilderness who believes that this is the language of oppression? Is this what we lived through the 60's for? I am fundamentally opposed to every idea that is expressed by this POV. Buck: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here Me: Again with the conflation of violence and speech. This is critical to the sophistic goal of combining our natural civilized aversion to violence and pair it with someone calling another adult a name in a heated discussion. It is like an advertiser putting up a picture of their product next to a woman who looks as if she might be able to effectively nurse her child using a lady part that cannot be referenced directly because it might reveal the micro-inequality of sexism and might draw down the fire of an actionable remedy. (such creepy lawyer speech to hide creepy intentions.) Buck: by some behavior of some individuals in character as was on FFL but finding actionable cultural movement in progressive civil discourse that seems more broadly afoot otherwise. Me: You know what I hear in this tortured use of language? Intellectual insecurity. I hear this in education circles a lot. People afraid to state something simply and directly because they don't want you to really be able to evaluate the flimsy idea embellished by sophistic lawyer talk BSery. I can clear up the ideas easily: Buck is saying that he is
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
On 07/09/2015 08:33 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. /*Heh, that's what I said in a post before I read this one. People sit around in corporate boardrooms and dream this stuff up because the lawyers and marketing demand it. There was probably a tug-a-war between the more rational and idealistic in that meeting and probably a more senior manager reminding them they were to create suggestions not rules. Those here who have sat in corporate boardrooms know what I mean. :)*/ Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why Jerry Seinfeld (see meditator reference so it must be good kids) said he doesn't perform on college campuses anymore. This line made my veins run with ice water: Buck: looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. Me: This is on the campus with a committee discussing actionable remedy for free speech if they detect micro-inequalities in what you have said. Am I really the lone voice in the wilderness who believes that this is the language of oppression? Is this what we lived through the 60's for? I am fundamentally opposed to every idea that is expressed by this POV. Buck: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here Me: Again with the conflation of violence and speech. This is critical to the sophistic goal of combining our natural civilized aversion to violence and pair it with someone calling another adult a name in a heated discussion. It is like an advertiser putting up a picture of their product next to a woman who looks as if she might be able to effectively nurse her child using a lady part that cannot be referenced directly because it might reveal the micro-inequality of sexism and might draw down the fire of an actionable remedy. (such creepy lawyer speech to hide creepy intentions.) Buck: by some behavior of some individuals in character as was
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
Curtis, I actually read this message from Doug rather differently. The section below seems to be referring to younger TMers at the university who are pointing out to older TM-movement types that some of the language they use contains these micro-inequities. The young people are not so trained in TM-speak as the older ones, so they are trying to educate them about the limitations or unconscious biases of the TM-speak that has been second nature to TM campus folk for thirty years and more. Here's the passage I am referring to: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. If I am correct, this actually would be a positive development from the point of view of those who dislike traditional TM-speak. It's not always possible to tell from Doug's posts exactly what he has in mind, so I could be wrong, but that is how I read it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why Jerry Seinfeld (see meditator reference so it must be good kids) said he doesn't perform on college campuses anymore. This line made my veins run with ice water: Buck: looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. Me: This is on the campus with a committee discussing actionable remedy for free speech if they detect micro-inequalities in what you have said. Am I really the lone voice in the wilderness who believes that this is the language of oppression? Is this what we lived through the 60's for? I am fundamentally opposed to every idea that is expressed by this POV. Buck: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here Me: Again with the conflation of violence and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
LOL! Sounds like Yahoo is your new guru and Yahoo Guidelines the New Vedas? Are you going to sell your farm and move to Sunnyvale? Get ready for some real estate sticker shock. Are you doing pujas daily to Marissa? Being in the tech industry and living in the SF Bay Area let me give you a little background on Silicon Valley or what I like to call Silly Conned Valley (yes, it's a very nutty place). The phenomena popped up due to graduates from Stanford setting up businesses in their garages. Hewlett-Packard was one of the early ones. And we all know about the other two guys who started building computers in their garage but neither were graduates. Back in the late 1990s many of us were on an email service call eGroups. There are probably some here who participated in the Jyotish email group set up by a former TM teacher. It's still alive as a Yahoo Group with a lot Indian jyotishees brawling it out. In fact what happened to eGroups was that Yahoo bought them in 2000 and the result is Yahoo Groups. As for guidelines, these are things that folks sitting around in a boardroom dream up. They evolve over time and as product managers for Yahoo Groups bring up problems they are seeing but it's mainly someone saying we need some guidelines, particularly for newbies starting up a group. They are suggestions for decorum and nothing more. They are not rigid rules and they are certainly not the New Vedas. On 07/09/2015 06:47 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here by some behavior of some individuals in character as was on FFL but finding actionable cultural movement in progressive civil discourse that seems more broadly afoot otherwise. The collaboration in practice seems to require some willing studied [conscious] self-control of self-moderation for participation in the engagement. Also known as, civility and how things are said. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Doug is right here, and I think calling this new group Free Speech is a misnomer, as Doug implies. It's more a question of civility than free speech. IIf, say, you go to a party and spend your time there insulting and ridiculing and misrepresenting others, you will likely be asked to leave. But would it be fair to call that a curtailment of your right to free speech? I don't think so. It would just be an adverse commentary on your boorish social behavior, which you would be well advised to amend. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : As someone pointed out down at Paradiso Cafe in Fairfield, Iowa this morning about the creation of FFL2 for the FFL-banished, these fox may not have fun for long by themselves without also having hens to pick on. Making straw-men may suffice for some while and keep them from tearing at each other for some time. The Yahoo-groups guidelines eventually will find and rule them where ever they may go as they meet up with kind people in civil society. A character of violence in civil society often is that it is self-limiting in nature and the asocial tend to isolate themselves. Thanks for better facilitating that, Alex. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : On a whim, I made a FFL free speech zone. Use it. Don't use it. Doesn't matter to me. Just letting you know it's there. Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 image https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Yahoo! Groups
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Curtis, I actually read this message from Doug rather differently. The section below seems to be referring to younger TMers at the university who are pointing out to older TM-movement types that some of the language they use contains these micro-inequities. The young people are not so trained in TM-speak as the older ones, so they are trying to educate them about the limitations or unconscious biases of the TM-speak that has been second nature to TM campus folk for thirty years and more. Here's the passage I am referring to: Me: Yes I agree with you. Sometimes the push to limit free speech comes from the students as in this case which is why Jerry wont play gigs on campuses. But the details are not the problem that I am seeing. Whatever the vague standard they are proposing it is the same routine the establishment runs. Make a statement like only positivity will be tolerated and then you can go after anyone you want. But you are bringing up a cool point about the oppressors being called on language by the students. It is hilarious. They are going to make the PC people more PC in a different PC way! I did a Ventriloquist magic show at South Fallsberg a million years ago for a bunch of Mother Divine types. My contact was an old MIU friend and former World Government Lady. She went over my routine over the show and was very concerned that the dynamic between me and my vent figure partner was not satvic enough because he was making fun of me. Gutting comedic drama of anything that anyone could view as possibly negitive was what she was requesting. Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. If I am correct, this actually would be a positive development from the point of view of those who dislike traditional TM-speak. It's not always possible to tell from Doug's posts exactly what he has in mind, so I could be wrong, but that is how I read it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Speech Zones
Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here by some behavior of some individuals in character as was on FFL but finding actionable cultural movement in progressive civil discourse that seems more broadly afoot otherwise. The collaboration in practice seems to require some willing studied [conscious] self-control of self-moderation for participation in the engagement. Also known as, civility and how things are said. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Doug is right here, and I think calling this new group Free Speech is a misnomer, as Doug implies. It's more a question of civility than free speech. IIf, say, you go to a party and spend your time there insulting and ridiculing and misrepresenting others, you will likely be asked to leave. But would it be fair to call that a curtailment of your right to free speech? I don't think so. It would just be an adverse commentary on your boorish social behavior, which you would be well advised to amend. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : As someone pointed out down at Paradiso Cafe in Fairfield, Iowa this morning about the creation of FFL2 for the FFL-banished, these fox may not have fun for long by themselves without also having hens to pick on. Making straw-men may suffice for some while and keep them from tearing at each other for some time. The Yahoo-groups guidelines eventually will find and rule them where ever they may go as they meet up with kind people in civil society. A character of violence in civil society often is that it is self-limiting in nature and the asocial tend to isolate themselves. Thanks for better facilitating that, Alex. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : On a whim, I made a FFL free speech zone. Use it. Don't use it. Doesn't matter to me. Just letting you know it's there. Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content. View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Preview by Yahoo Thank God, now maybe we can get some peace around here from all the whining. I think you might have wanted to call the new site australia.
