Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : snip So that you can respond to me with greater precision subsequently, I have a non-theistic view of the world, care about facts and scientific reasoning, and to the extent I am able, logic. I do think there is something to spirituality, but that all descriptions thereof are metaphorical, that we are dealing with a subject matter that lies outside the thinking process, but not outside experience, and that all statements concerning this are basically untrue but function as guideposts for experience and discovery much in the same way poetry and music provide avenues into experience that mere prose cannot fathom. I love this anartaxius! Maybe we should all be required to make a policy statement along these lines. We might communicate better. (-: P.S. I might come back to this later, when I have a little more time to respond. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Xeno, you have to admit, this is sort of funny. For the last few months, we've had to hear how much you've missed sparring with Judy, and how inadequate those of us who you describe as being in that other camp of FFLers are, in engaging in intellectual discussions. But now you have your wish, (at least temporarily), and you're complaining again! Son, make up your mind. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I wasn't really complaining. Sparring with Judy is a unique challenge. I do not think I ever quite got the hang of it, it is an ongoing learning process dealing with other minds, or what appears to be other minds (y'all could be robots or zombies). I do think your arguments tend to be spongy, and yours is another mind I do not fully grok. Note however I do appear to be more courteous than Edg in responding to you. I think your comments there were well taken. So that you can respond to me with greater precision subsequently, I have a non-theistic view of the world, care about facts and scientific reasoning, and to the extent I am able, logic. I do think there is something to spirituality, but that all descriptions thereof are metaphorical, that we are dealing with a subject matter that lies outside the thinking process, but not outside experience, and that all statements concerning this are basically untrue but function as guideposts for experience and discovery much in the same way poetry and music provide avenues into experience that mere prose cannot fathom. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Xeno, you have to admit, this is sort of funny. For the last few months, we've had to hear how much you've missed sparring with Judy, and how inadequate those of us who you describe as being in that other camp of FFLers are, in engaging in intellectual discussions. But now you have your wish, (at least temporarily), and you're complaining again! Son, make up your mind. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Xeno, you have to admit, this is sort of funny. For the last few months, we've had to hear how much you've missed sparring with Judy, and how inadequate those of us who you describe as being in that other camp of FFLers are, in engaging in intellectual discussions. But now you have your wish, (at least temporarily), and you're complaining again! Son, make up your mind. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Also funny is that if you were to tell him he was being antagonistic, he'd immediately reply that the only antagonism was a reflection of your reactive state of mind, not anything for which he was responsible. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Xeno, you have to admit, this is sort of funny. For the last few months, we've had to hear how much you've missed sparring with Judy, and how inadequate those of us who you describe as being in that other camp of FFLers are, in engaging in intellectual discussions. But now you have your wish, (at least temporarily), and you're complaining again! Son, make up your mind. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
No, you have not got it right, period. My hypothesis is your asking about how I was parsing levels of intelligence was simply to extend this discussion interminably, a per your previous custom. My bringing up the subject of 'the stupidest person on FFL' was simply a device to bring up issues related to potential censorship, for if named, 'the stupidest person on FFL' would be an insult, though perhaps the stupidest person, were there one, might not be aware it would be an insult or even unkind if they were truly stupid enough. Others though, might claim it was an insult, and this might bring down the moderator's boom on whoever pointed the finger using a name. I am sure you are clever enough to realise that, eventually. '2. Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity or ranting. If you wouldn't say it in public or with a group of friends, don't post it.' Doug is fond of this guideline. Just about everyone here in the past has violated this guideline, including you, including me, including Barry, and even our moderator. So my bringing up the 'stupidest' and 'smartest' person really has little or nothing to do with IQ, however it might be measured or assumed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Your hypothesis is once again way off base. You've picked up that canard from Barry, but it's never been true. What I was attempting to point out is that the whole notion of the stupidest (or smartest) person on FFL is, well, just stupid. I did not pick it up from Barry. It is a memory from adolescence, or even earlier, thinking about people that way. It provided the nexus for a post. Glad you are not thinking of being the brightest or dimmest light. But we have not discussed saintliness or pure evil yet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, you have not got it right, period. My hypothesis is your asking about how I was parsing levels of intelligence was simply to extend this discussion interminably, a per your previous custom. My bringing up the subject of 'the stupidest person on FFL' was simply a device to bring up issues related to potential censorship, for if named, 'the stupidest person on FFL' would be an insult, though perhaps the stupidest person, were there one, might not be aware it would be an insult or even unkind if they were truly stupid enough. Others though, might claim it was an insult, and this might bring down the moderator's boom on whoever pointed the finger using a name. I am sure you are clever enough to realise that, eventually. It's a lot more convoluted than I had imagined, that's for sure. Not to mention unrealistic, in that no one on FFL is *that* stupid. Your hypothesis is once again way off base. You've picked up that canard from Barry, but it's never been true. What I was attempting to point out is that the whole notion of the stupidest (or smartest) person on FFL is, well, just stupid. '2. Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity or ranting. If you wouldn't say it in public or with a group of friends, don't post it.' Doug is fond of this guideline. Just about everyone here in the past has violated this guideline, including you, including me, including Barry, and even our moderator. So my bringing up the 'stupidest' and 'smartest' person really has little or nothing to do with IQ, however it might be measured or assumed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I meant your extend this discussion interminably, a [sic] per your previous custom hypothesis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Your hypothesis is once again way off base. You've picked up that canard from Barry, but it's never been true. What I was attempting to point out is that the whole notion of the stupidest (or smartest) person on FFL is, well, just stupid. I did not pick it up from Barry. It is a memory from adolescence, or even earlier, thinking about people that way. It provided the nexus for a post. Glad you are not thinking of being the brightest or dimmest light. But we have not discussed saintliness or pure evil yet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I must say that I've observed the same tendency in xeno. He has often asked me (in a rather pointed way) to define some terms I use, to which I happily oblige his request. But when I make the same request of him, the response goes silent. Please give me the list of the things I have ignored. I do ignore things when I am focused on some other feature of a post. I will try to accommodate my oversight. What I have done, is just to lower the expectations I have of my interactions with Xeno. It is a shame really, but I think it is the price one pays if one wants to keep up a dialog. I would say it reduces that dialog to not much of anything, but at least I have some kind of iron in the fire, even if that iron never gets very hot. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
/He should probably define the term nspiritual and the cult word acronym TM as well./ Quoting authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com: I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens. Links: -- [1] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416735;_ylc=X3oDMTJycG9uNjFvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjczNQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMwNjc-?act=replymessageNum=416735 [2] mailto:authfri...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BFairfieldLife%5D%20Re%3A%20Moderating%20The%20Peep%20Show [3] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BFairfieldLife%5D%20Re%3A%20Moderating%20The%20Peep%20Show [4] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJldmxobTUyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDE2MzA2Nw-- [5] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/416073;_ylc=X3oDMTM4N3JxMnVpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjczNQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMwNjcEdHBjSWQDNDE2MDcz [6] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOTc3bG9tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDE2MzA2Nw-- [7] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJma2x0ajM4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMwNjc- [8] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkOGhzOXA4BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDM0MTYzMDY3 [9] https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html [10] mailto:fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe [11] https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? I have no proposal to do this nor have I ever intended to do so. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. Yes let's do that, but apparently you have no recollection either. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) Not likely. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Judy at her finest!!
From: authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale. That should be sufficient.
And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for
those no longer posting here) how?
Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I
don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly
good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post
trolling.
(Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you
mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been
willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar
recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your
inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory.
If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will
give an answer.
Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established.
(Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case.
Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms,
you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that
you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the
potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as
it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to
avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more
intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that
is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a
symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a
personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted
in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly
was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a
group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158 -- #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp #yiv8824668158hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp #yiv8824668158ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp .yiv8824668158ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp .yiv8824668158ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp .yiv8824668158ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-sponsor
#yiv8824668158ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-sponsor #yiv8824668158ygrp-lc #yiv8824668158hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-sponsor #yiv8824668158ygrp-lc .yiv8824668158ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158activity span
.yiv8824668158underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8824668158
.yiv8824668158attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv8824668158
.yiv8824668158bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 dd.yiv8824668158last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv8824668158 dd.yiv8824668158last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks, I think... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Judy at her finest!! From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Sorta of busy today, but I will try o find some time to do so. It often takes the form of asking your opinion about something, and getting a reply that is so riddled with qualifications that it become meaningless, IMO. Okay, one example, and I hope I'm not violating the guidelines. You indicated that Barry would fare fine with the new guidelines. I disagreed. I felt it would be pretty easy to determine if this would be the case, or not. I figured it would be pretty easy to make an evaluations on this. I believe your response was, We can never be sure of what a person's intentions are So, my take away from this is that there is probably little, if anything, on which you are likely to take a firm stand, at least as far as Barry is concerned. So, I adjust my expectations accordingly. No biggie, really. You just...adjust your expectations accordingly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I must say that I've observed the same tendency in xeno. He has often asked me (in a rather pointed way) to define some terms I use, to which I happily oblige his request. But when I make the same request of him, the response goes silent. Please give me the list of the things I have ignored. I do ignore things when I am focused on some other feature of a post. I will try to accommodate my oversight. What I have done, is just to lower the expectations I have of my interactions with Xeno. It is a shame really, but I think it is the price one pays if one wants to keep up a dialog. I would say it reduces that dialog to not much of anything, but at least I have some kind of iron in the fire, even if that iron never gets very hot. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
And here I thought your criteria was whether someone could write a graduate level academic essay as a post. You must have grown up in an academic environment. And the TMO wouldn't have helped because they seemed to be able to publish something that could be explained in a paragraph or two if it could be several pages long instead. :-D On 06/13/2015 06:09 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and ! it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
WR, to this whole thread, It's so annoying, all this clever disguising of intentions, and innuendo. And yes, to try to rate someone here on their IQ? I mean, wouldn't that be a candidate for stupidest idea? Just sayin' ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? I have no proposal to do this nor have I ever intended to do so. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. Yes let's do that, but apparently you have no recollection either. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) Not likely. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? I have no proposal to do this nor have I ever intended to do so. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. Yes let's do that, but apparently you have no recollection either. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) Not likely. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I'm sorry you were antagonized by my asking about your thought processes concerning your new smartest/stupidest kick. It didn't occur to me that you would consider it intrusive. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
follow them --
will result in making FFL as a group and you as a person into a laughing stock
and cause them to lose ANY credibility whatsoever. Falling for an appeal such
as the one below -- that claims to speak for an entire group and claims that
the entire group was insulted just because one person says so -- would be one
of those errors.
I hope that you will prove yourself wise enough in the future to figure these
things out for yourself. Until then, you may expect me to keep commenting on
them to help you put them into a perspective that represents a larger slice of
the population of Fairfield Life than the voices attempting to use you to get
people they don't like.
From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks, Authfriend your post here seemsa fair brief of a time on FFL. I
will keep it at hand as a referencegoing forward.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote :
If one were to be actually honest, instead of just pretending to be, two points
would need to be made:
1. The insult wasn't really to Maharishi; it was to those who revere him. It
was said that if they had witnessed him sexually abusing a baby, they would
nevertheless continue to maintain he was a life celibate. The hypothetical
image of Maharishi abusing a baby was tasteless and offensive, but it was the
vicious slur on his followers that triggered the upset and outrage.
2. It wasn't just this one entirely gratuitous insult, malicious as it was,
that led TM supporters to walk out. This was just the most recent in a very
long and relentless sequence of savage, sadistic insults by TM critics
personally targeting TM supporters.
Barry wrote, in part:
Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria
on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that
a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead
person that they went bat-shit crazy.
#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883 -- #yiv1816461883ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv1816461883
#yiv1816461883ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv1816461883
#yiv1816461883ygrp-mkp #yiv1816461883hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883ygrp-mkp #yiv1816461883ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883ygrp-mkp .yiv1816461883ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883ygrp-mkp .yiv1816461883ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883ygrp-mkp .yiv1816461883ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883ygrp-sponsor
#yiv1816461883ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv1816461883
#yiv1816461883ygrp-sponsor #yiv1816461883ygrp-lc #yiv1816461883hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv1816461883
#yiv1816461883ygrp-sponsor #yiv1816461883ygrp-lc .yiv1816461883ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv1816461883
#yiv1816461883activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv1816461883
#yiv1816461883activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv1816461883
#yiv1816461883activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv1816461883 #yiv1816461883activity span
.yiv1816461883underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1816461883
.yiv1816461883attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv1816461883 .yiv1816461883attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1816461883 .yiv1816461883attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv1816461883 .yiv1816461883attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv1816461883 .yiv1816461883attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1816461883 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv1816461883 .yiv1816461883bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv1816461883
.yiv1816461883bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv1816461883 dd.yiv1816461883last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv1816461883 dd.yiv1816461883last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv1816461883
dd.yiv1816461883last p span.yiv1816461883yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv1816461883 div.yiv1816461883attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1816461883 div.yiv1816461883attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv1816461883 div.yiv1816461883file-title a, #yiv1816461883
div.yiv1816461883file-title a:active, #yiv1816461883
div.yiv1816461883file-title a:hover, #yiv1816461883 div.yiv1816461883file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
In case you missed some of the old stuff that was in your absence, here it is, 11. It was a medical issue. The constant presence of Jim's, Nabby's, Steve's, and Ann's tongues up Judy's ass was aggravating her Crohn's Disease and giving her constant diarrhea. The only way she could get rid of it was to get rid of them. :-) 414053 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414053 So far, not even Ann, who probably has her tongue stuck up Judy's butt and has been unable to post yet today. :-) 373266 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/373266 --- authfriend@... wrote : Oh, Barry, you doofus, you screwed up AGAIN. Twice in one morning! You need more coffee, or stronger coffee, or more sleep, or something. All that writing time wasted... NOWHERE did I claim to represent the feelings of all people who practice TM. I was quite obviously speaking of the same people referred to in the quote from the post I was commenting on--those who were insulted by the earlier post in question. How could you have missed that?? This mistake invalidates all the other accusations you make against me here. And NOWHERE did I suggest that earlier post was admissible evidence to trigger moderation in the future. I'd be the first to complain if past behavior, appalling as it may have been, was used in this way. It's simply a matter of getting the history straight, because it tends to become distorted at the hands of...uh...certain people here. I think that's what Doug had in mind when he said that what I wrote will serve as a reference of a time on FFL. A post like the one I'm now commenting on, however, full of accusations made up out of whole cloth, might well be a target for moderation. But that's up to Doug. --- turquoiseb@... wrote : Doug, I want to thank you for finally breaking your silence and commenting on the things you will bear in mind when looking for posters to censor. Uh, I mean moderate, of course, because we all know that censorship would be BAD. But I think you're wrong about the reference value of the post below, so I will tell you why: 1. This post does NOT represent the feelings of all people who practice TM, although it claims to. Many on this forum who still practice TM and feel positively about Maharishi went out of their way at the time to comment that they did *NOT* feel insulted by the post this person is trying say was offensive and insulting. 2. This post is an attempt by one person to assert that she has the right to speak for ALL TMers and declare them all insulted by the post in question. She has neither that right, nor that ability. As mentioned in point #1, a few strong TMers spoke up back during the original furor saying that they did NOT find the post in question overly offensive, and that they did NOT feel personally offended by it. Thus the person writing this brief below is not only speaking for a group she has no right to speak for, she's WRONG in claiming that they would all feel insulted. She's trying to claim (in essence) that what *she* felt is what *everyone* who practices TM would feel. 3. She's even WRONG about the insulting nature of the post. While the language used to create the metaphor for a certain mindset is admittedly over the top (for effect), the mindset is very real, and has been documented many times in the past -- on this forum and elsewhere. Every time a person knew that Maharishi in real life did and said things that his PR and his dogma claimed he was incapable of doing -- and *ignored* what they knew about what went on in real life -- they were exhibiting this mindset. I call the mindset Attempting to deal with cognitive dissonance by denying the existence of the conflicting reality that goes against what they've been told to believe. For example, every time one of the skin boys told someone that Maharishi never entertained women in his room after hours *when they knew better because they were there and let the women in*, they were exhibiting this mindset. We have *several* of these skin boys on record as belatedly admitting to have lied in this fashion. Or take the TM teachers who, if asked, would swear on a stack of Gitas that Maharishi was *incapable* of being dishonest or breaking the law because he was so in tune with the laws of nature that being dishonest would be impossible for him. Then remember that some of the TM teachers saying this had *themselves* been asked by Maharishi to illegally carry large sums of money from Europe to the US, or from Europe to India. They *knew* he was capable of breaking the law because he had asked them to do it for him, but when asked, they denied that he was even *capable* of breaking the law. THAT is the mindset I'm speaking about, and that my metaphor was carefully chosen to represent. It exists. It's more prevalent than people like
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
...you can't do that. You have to show us the exact post you feel is offensive, and it has to have been made since you became moderator and claimed in public that you would allow everyone to 'start over clean.' Doug, I do not envy you the task you've set for yourself. I think you were quite foolish to undertake it, in fact. But since you have, I really *AM* trying to help by pointing out errors of thinking that -- if you follow them -- will result in making FFL as a group and you as a person into a laughing stock and cause them to lose ANY credibility whatsoever. Falling for an appeal such as the one below -- that claims to speak for an entire group and claims that the entire group was insulted just because one person says so -- would be one of those errors. I hope that you will prove yourself wise enough in the future to figure these things out for yourself. Until then, you may expect me to keep commenting on them to help you put them into a perspective that represents a larger slice of the population of Fairfield Life than the voices attempting to use you to get people they don't like. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Thanks, Authfriend your post here seems a fair brief of a time on FFL. I will keep it at hand as a reference going forward. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : If one were to be actually honest, instead of just pretending to be, two points would need to be made: 1. The insult wasn't really to Maharishi; it was to those who revere him. It was said that if they had witnessed him sexually abusing a baby, they would nevertheless continue to maintain he was a life celibate. The hypothetical image of Maharishi abusing a baby was tasteless and offensive, but it was the vicious slur on his followers that triggered the upset and outrage. 2. It wasn't just this one entirely gratuitous insult, malicious as it was, that led TM supporters to walk out. This was just the most recent in a very long and relentless sequence of savage, sadistic insults by TM critics personally targeting TM supporters. Barry wrote, in part: Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
into agreeing with her, and feel insulted by what I posted. Unfortunately for her, many members of the TMer group here on FFL *didn't*, so she failed even in that. 5. Finally, the last and most important point -- and the one that those like the person below who are *still* trying to use this moderator boondoggle to get the people they've obsessively hated for decades want to obscure -- is that all of this is IN THE PAST. As such, it is not admissible evidence when attempting to moderate or ban anyone in the future. Buck has elsewhere *claimed* that he will base his decisions as a moderator on current activity. I don't actually believe him, or believe him capable of doing so, but he *has* claimed it, so if he ever tries to moderate someone based on their supposed history, everyone has the right to say, Now WAIT a minute, Doug...you can't do that. You have to show us the exact post you feel is offensive, and it has to have been made since you became moderator and claimed in public that you would allow everyone to 'start over clean.' Doug, I do not envy you the task you've set for yourself. I think you were quite foolish to undertake it, in fact. But since you have, I really *AM* trying to help by pointing out errors of thinking that -- if you follow them -- will result in making FFL as a group and you as a person into a laughing stock and cause them to lose ANY credibility whatsoever. Falling for an appeal such as the one below -- that claims to speak for an entire group and claims that the entire group was insulted just because one person says so -- would be one of those errors. I hope that you will prove yourself wise enough in the future to figure these things out for yourself. Until then, you may expect me to keep commenting on them to help you put them into a perspective that represents a larger slice of the population of Fairfield Life than the voices attempting to use you to get people they don't like. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Thanks, Authfriend your post here seems a fair brief of a time on FFL. I will keep it at hand as a reference going forward. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : If one were to be actually honest, instead of just pretending to be, two points would need to be made: 1. The insult wasn't really to Maharishi; it was to those who revere him. It was said that if they had witnessed him sexually abusing a baby, they would nevertheless continue to maintain he was a life celibate. The hypothetical image of Maharishi abusing a baby was tasteless and offensive, but it was the vicious slur on his followers that triggered the upset and outrage. 2. It wasn't just this one entirely gratuitous insult, malicious as it was, that led TM supporters to walk out. This was just the most recent in a very long and relentless sequence of savage, sadistic insults by TM critics personally targeting TM supporters. Barry wrote, in part: Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I must say that I've observed the same tendency in xeno. He has often asked me (in a rather pointed way) to define some terms I use, to which I happily oblige his request. But when I make the same request of him, the response goes silent. What I have done, is just to lower the expectations I have of my interactions with Xeno. It is a shame really, but I think it is the price one pays if one wants to keep up a dialog. I would say it reduces that dialog to not much of anything, but at least I have some kind of iron in the fire, even if that iron never gets very hot. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
ALL Muslims. Bullshit. 95% of Muslims don't give a shit what some person from another religion or from no religion says about Mohammed. The people claiming that a *group* is offended are just posturing and demonstrating faux outrage. Below, this person is trying to recruit people who feel like they're a part of the group she's faux defending into agreeing with her, and feel insulted by what I posted. Unfortunately for her, many members of the TMer group here on FFL *didn't*, so she failed even in that. 5. Finally, the last and most important point -- and the one that those like the person below who are *still* trying to use this moderator boondoggle to get the people they've obsessively hated for decades want to obscure -- is that all of this is IN THE PAST. As such, it is not admissible evidence when attempting to moderate or ban anyone in the future. Buck has elsewhere *claimed* that he will base his decisions as a moderator on current activity. I don't actually believe him, or believe him capable of doing so, but he *has* claimed it, so if he ever tries to moderate someone based on their supposed history, everyone has the right to say, Now WAIT a minute, Doug...you can't do that. You have to show us the exact post you feel is offensive, and it has to have been made since you became moderator and claimed in public that you would allow everyone to 'start over clean.' Doug, I do not envy you the task you've set for yourself. I think you were quite foolish to undertake it, in fact. But since you have, I really *AM* trying to help by pointing out errors of thinking that -- if you follow them -- will result in making FFL as a group and you as a person into a laughing stock and cause them to lose ANY credibility whatsoever. Falling for an appeal such as the one below -- that claims to speak for an entire group and claims that the entire group was insulted just because one person says so -- would be one of those errors. I hope that you will prove yourself wise enough in the future to figure these things out for yourself. Until then, you may expect me to keep commenting on them to help you put them into a perspective that represents a larger slice of the population of Fairfield Life than the voices attempting to use you to get people they don't like. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Thanks, Authfriend your post here seems a fair brief of a time on FFL. I will keep it at hand as a reference going forward. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : If one were to be actually honest, instead of just pretending to be, two points would need to be made: 1. The insult wasn't really to Maharishi; it was to those who revere him. It was said that if they had witnessed him sexually abusing a baby, they would nevertheless continue to maintain he was a life celibate. The hypothetical image of Maharishi abusing a baby was tasteless and offensive, but it was the vicious slur on his followers that triggered the upset and outrage. 2. It wasn't just this one entirely gratuitous insult, malicious as it was, that led TM supporters to walk out. This was just the most recent in a very long and relentless sequence of savage, sadistic insults by TM critics personally targeting TM supporters. Barry wrote, in part: Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Some people, Jason, just have very weird sexual fantasies. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jason_green2@... wrote : In case you missed some of the old stuff that was in your absence, here it is, 11. It was a medical issue. The constant presence of Jim's, Nabby's, Steve's, and Ann's tongues up Judy's ass was aggravating her Crohn's Disease and giving her constant diarrhea. The only way she could get rid of it was to get rid of them. :-) 414053 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414053 So far, not even Ann, who probably has her tongue stuck up Judy's butt and has been unable to post yet today. :-) 373266 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/373266
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks, Authfriend your post here seems a fair brief of a time on FFL. I will keep it at hand as a reference going forward. Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416559 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416559 Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416559 Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Mana... View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416559 Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote : If one were to be actually honest, instead of just pretending to be, two points would need to be made: 1. The insult wasn't really to Maharishi; it was to those who revere him. It was said that if they had witnessed him sexually abusing a baby, they would nevertheless continue to maintain he was a life celibate. The hypothetical image of Maharishi abusing a baby was tasteless and offensive, but it was the vicious slur on his followers that triggered the upset and outrage. 2. It wasn't just this one entirely gratuitous insult, malicious as it was, that led TM supporters to walk out. This was just the most recent in a very long and relentless sequence of savage, sadistic insults by TM critics personally targeting TM supporters. Barry wrote, in part: Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Just thought I'd respond to mention that I like this story (below). As it turns out, this is exactly what my strategy was when I was still competing in martial arts competitions (non-contact karate back in the 60s). I would just watch and wait, and then respond only when the other person had committed themselves. I didn't actually compete in that many tournaments (other interests -- like discovering LSD -- took me away from my karate studies soon afterwards), but I never lost a match using this strategy. The only memorable match I did lose was when the other guy ran this same number on me, but better, forcing me to make the first move. And I can't feel too badly about that loss, because it was to a young Chuck Norris, who went on to win the World Championship that year. :-) Interestingly, I can see how it would be just as effective a strategy when dealing with Internet trolls. Just let them sputter and call names and curse. There is simply *no need* to ever respond unless they cross the line and actually commit to a course of action that requires a response, like (citing recent history) posting actual libel and encouraging others to act on it. It seems to me that this strategy will be even more effective for dealing with our remaining trolls in the Age Of Buck. They won't be able to stop trying to get those of us they're obsessed with, but to do so they actually have to make the first move and attack or insult us. The moment they do, THEY are the ones guilty of being unkind, belligerent, exploitative, degrading, insulting, using slurs, profanity or ranting, and thus if Doug is doing his job, they'll not only defeat themselves like the young guy in this story, they'll be moderated and outa here, and we won't have to worry about them any more. From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com There once lived a great warrior. Though quite old, he still was able to defeat any challenger. His reputation extended far and wide throughout the land and many students gathered to study under him. One day an infamous young warrior arrived at the village. He was determined to be the first man to defeat the great master. Along with his strength, he had an uncanny ability to spot and exploit any weakness in an opponent. He would wait for his opponent to make the first move, thus revealing a weakness, and then would strike with merciless force and lightning speed. No one had ever lasted with him in a match beyond the first move. Much against the advice of his concerned students, the old master gladly accepted the young warrior's challenge. As the two squared off for battle, the young warrior began to hurl insults at the old master. He threw dirt and spit in his face. For hours he verbally assaulted him with every curse and insult known to mankind. But the old warrior merely stood there motionless and calm. Finally, the young warrior exhausted himself. Knowing he was defeated, he left feeling shamed. Somewhat disappointed that he did not fight the insolent youth, the students gathered around the old master and questioned him. How could you endure such an indignity? How did you drive him away? If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it, the master replied, to whom does the gift belong?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Doug, you realize that Barry is throwing one helluva of a tantrum, right now. Maybe like a six year old, if that makes any sense. Give him time, maybe he'll get over it. Maybe not. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: jamesalan735@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com If this wordy, badly written, convoluted, and incoherent paragraph below is a sign of what's to come - and I think it is exactly what we can expect - then let the fun begin! Hell and Handbasket come to mind. I've been trying to be gracious, but you make a good point. When the person chosen to be the moderator of a contentious group doesn't even realize that he's no longer writing coherent English sentences, it doesn't give me a lot of faith in Rick's belief that Doug is the right choice to lead Fairfield Life to a new age of peace and civility. I don't know why we'd be surprised at Rick's choice, however. He *is*, after all, the same person who presented both Ravi Chivukula and Jim Flanegin to the world as examples of enlightenment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
From: jamesalan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com If this wordy, badly written, convoluted, and incoherent paragraph below is a sign of what's to come - and I think it is exactly what we can expect - then let the fun begin! Hell and Handbasket come to mind. I've been trying to be gracious, but you make a good point. When the person chosen to be the moderator of a contentious group doesn't even realize that he's no longer writing coherent English sentences, it doesn't give me a lot of faith in Rick's belief that Doug is the right choice to lead Fairfield Life to a new age of peace and civility. I don't know why we'd be surprised at Rick's choice, however. He *is*, after all, the same person who presented both Ravi Chivukula and Jim Flanegin to the world as examples of enlightenment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : DearMJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderatinginterests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within theYahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to someother people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fairconversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident factto back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slursomeone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Does the term 'unkindness' ever refer to a dead person? They can never hear an insult and respond. Like talking to a wall. Does the term 'unkindness' ever refer to a group? There are large groups each of which thinks of the other in ill terms. In the United States there are the groups the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party. They bicker between themselves just as individuals do here, but is is bickering on the level of ideology rather than personal. I presume 'unkindness' refers to an individual's feelings, for for 'unkindness' to take place, the individual has to feel the sting of it, and dead people do not count. People here have said things to me, but what if I do not feel the sting? What if it does not bother me? Who is the one who interprets unkindness. If I feel no unkindness in a slighting remark made to me, is another person authorised to make that decision for me, to say someone has been unkind to me? It is the ego that experiences unkindness, not the awareness that brings a comment to light. The awareness is neutral. And yet ego is considered one of the barriers to enlightenment and one technique used in some spiritual circles is to attack the ego directly. If the person so attacked has a modicum of awareness and knowledge of ego, this can have a positive effect in shaving down egoistic behaviour and thinking. On the other hand if there is no awareness of the ego, the effect can be crushing on the ego and it complains about unkindness. But it is interesting that people practising a technique that presumes to bring enlightenment often are completely opaque in regards their own ego. Well, those with fragile egos have moved over to the Peak. Over here (Doug, if you are reading) we are more robust and can take a certain amount of flack. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : All right, well I disagree. Specifically, I disagree that there have to be facts to back up any insults or revilement I or others may toss out towards Marshy, TM and or the Movement. Does not my belief in such things make no difference? If the answer is no, then folks like Nappy Nabby would no longer be able to post crop circle crap or news of the perennially impending appearance of Maitreya. There are no facts to support such posts. In addition, the belief in facts any poster uses to back up their posts will not be universally accepted by all readers. I believe that colloidal silver is an excellent thing to use and back that assertion up with my own experiences, yet my friend Sal from across the Great Water believes them facts to be crap. Thus by your standards I cannot call Marshy a fraud unless I have a photo of him stuffing a suitcase full of cash and handing it off to Neal Patterson to transport to India and a photo of a grinning and slimmer Girish taking the suitcase from Neal's hand over in India. In addition I cannot personally adhere to the yahoo guidelines governing insults, because most of what I say about Marshy, TM and the Movement could certainly be construed by others as being insulting, but only be TM True Believers. So I fatalistically await my impending removal from FFL. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
It would be interesting to know, just from an FFL historical viewpoint, exactly what enormities of mine were spelled out in your indictment of me from the previous time. Can you post it here for all of us to read and enjoy? P.S. - If you do I am about to go offline for I have some regular work to do so I may not read it till tonight. Happy Sheep Shearing! Or does that take place in the fall? From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show MJ,you are making a lot of assumptions here hypothetically splitting hairs. Trolling? I have no problem with your content here about Maharishi by case. That is differentthan when you step on the yahoo-groups guidelines where you aretrying to hurt people. Now,for instance well before Rick tapped me for enforcement of theyahoo-group guideline as a FFL CEO I drew up an indictment of youagainst the yahoo-groups guidelines and was preparing to send it overto Rick for action. However it was then becoming apparent that youwere reading the current of change coming here and were moderatingyourself more in alignment with the yahoo-groups guidelines and evenapologizing for misdeeds here. I did not send that indictment overto Rick so you were never tried on that indictment. That quiteevidently was different than what you are trying for in this. Howeverif you or anyone else don't wish to abide by the yahoo-groupsguidelines I should not be glad to slow down the send-cycle of yourposts to FFL and place them on to a 'moderated' status beforereleasing them to FFL, as I may get around to them. If you wish it all tobe over more quickly I could drag out the indictment and review ithere and it would be evident [ref FFL# 415306]. However right now Ishould wish to have people go forward from this point clean. Theyahoo-groups guidelines themselves are quite simple and require ofwriters only some self-control. Have a nice day, -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : All right, well I disagree. Specifically, I disagree that there have to be facts to back up any insults or revilement I or others may toss out towards Marshy, TM and or the Movement. Does not my belief in such things make no difference? If the answer is no, then folks like Nappy Nabby would no longer be able to post crop circle crap or news of the perennially impending appearance of Maitreya. There are no facts to support such posts. In addition, the belief in facts any poster uses to back up their posts will not be universally accepted by all readers. I believe that colloidal silver is an excellent thing to use and back that assertion up with my own experiences, yet my friend Sal from across the Great Water believes them facts to be crap. Thus by your standards I cannot call Marshy a fraud unless I have a photo of him stuffing a suitcase full of cash and handing it off to Neal Patterson to transport to India and a photo of a grinning and slimmer Girish taking the suitcase from Neal's hand over in India. In addition I cannot personally adhere to the yahoo guidelines governing insults, because most of what I say about Marshy, TM and the Movement could certainly be construed by others as being insulting, but only be TM True Believers. So I fatalistically await my impending removal from FFL. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show DearMJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderatinginterests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within theYahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to someother people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fairconversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident factto back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slursomeone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Another great movie moment. Lord Whorfin's Speech in Buckaroo Banzai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd56CIFSMI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd56CIFSMI4 Lord Whorfin's Speech in Buckaroo Banzai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd56CIFSMI4 Dr. Emilio Lizardo (John Lithgow) gives a speech to encourage his fellow exiles to work harder to complete the great vehicle so that can return home and sei. View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd56CIFSMI4 Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I'm sending this from my phone while out at a cafe, and to tell the truth I don't know how to start a brand new topic from my phone (let alone add my usual blue font color and formatting), so I'll just reply to this post to pass along a fun video I just rediscovered. It's just for fun, and shouldn't be construed to be a comment on the post below or on any particular person on Fairfield Life. Enjoy. best of Dr. Lizardo (Buckaroo Banzai) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw best of Dr. Lizardo (Buckaroo Banzai) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw the very best of John Lithgow (Lord John Whorfin / Dr. Emilio Lizardo) View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : MJ, you are making a lot of assumptions here hypothetically splitting hairs. Trolling? I have no problem with your content here about Maharishi by case. That is different than when you step on the yahoo-groups guidelines where you are trying to hurt people. Now, for instance well before Rick tapped me for enforcement of the yahoo-group guideline as a FFL CEO I drew up an indictment of you against the yahoo-groups guidelines and was preparing to send it over to Rick for action. However it was then becoming apparent that you were reading the current of change coming here and were moderating yourself more in alignment with the yahoo-groups guidelines and even apologizing for misdeeds here. I did not send that indictment over to Rick so you were never tried on that indictment. That quite evidently was different than what you are trying for in this. However if you or anyone else don't wish to abide by the yahoo-groups guidelines I should not be glad to slow down the send-cycle of your posts to FFL and place them on to a 'moderated' status before releasing them to FFL, as I may get around to them. If you wish it all to be over more quickly I could drag out the indictment and review it here and it would be evident [ref FFL# 415306]. However right now I should wish to have people go forward from this point clean. The yahoo-groups guidelines themselves are quite simple and require of writers only some self-control. Have a nice day, -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : All right, well I disagree. Specifically, I disagree that there have to be facts to back up any insults or revilement I or others may toss out towards Marshy, TM and or the Movement. Does not my belief in such things make no difference? If the answer is no, then folks like Nappy Nabby would no longer be able to post crop circle crap or news of the perennially impending appearance of Maitreya. There are no facts to support such posts. In addition, the belief in facts any poster uses to back up their posts will not be universally accepted by all readers. I believe that colloidal silver is an excellent thing to use and back that assertion up with my own experiences, yet my friend Sal from across the Great Water believes them facts to be crap. Thus by your standards I cannot call Marshy a fraud unless I have a photo of him stuffing a suitcase full of cash and handing it off to Neal Patterson to transport to India and a photo of a grinning and slimmer Girish taking the suitcase from Neal's hand over in India. In addition I cannot personally adhere to the yahoo guidelines governing insults, because most of what I say about Marshy, TM and the Movement could certainly be construed by others as being insulting, but only be TM True Believers. So I fatalistically await my impending removal from FFL. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
How very interesting Xeno. Let's leave the-peak out of it for a moment. That would be awesome, if what you say is correct. This bit about Barry being creative and a good writer, etc., and giving the new regime an honest try. I see different mechanics at play here. I don't think Barry intends to go down that path. I think he is going to be as disruptive as possible, test the limits, and overall, be a constant complainer. I guess, we'll see won't we! Xeno vs. Ray (steve) Round 1. Why this fascination with the_peak? You realize this framing of more enlightened group is strictly your own pettiness coming through. Looks like we have two of yas acting like a petulant children. Xeno, you're a grown man for god's sake. A senior citizen even. A man of accumulated knowledge. Partha, shake off this paltry faintheartedness!! Today's funny story. Last night one of my customers called me and said he had to leave for Panama in the morning to visit his ailing grandma. As he was in his mid to late 40's I said, that she must be in her 90's. He said older. She is 101! But that moment of cognitive dissonance was exquisite!! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : And you [steve] are on the playground complaining about what? I find this all rather interesting. It would seem Barry is faced with a potential unknown obstacle. But he is creative and a good writer, he should be able to weave around this if Doug remains a model of restraint. The guidelines are general rules so, for example, is it unkind to call someone stupid? Half the population of Earth is less intelligent than the other half. This issue is also being mentioned on The Peak — here is a sample from the 'more enlightened' group: == ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is being played for a chump over there. along with the other trolls. Just as I and others who oppose trolling have been. No one runs a site for 14 years, promising to change it when things get hot, and yet lets things grossly deteriorate, without this being completely intentional. I can believe ineptitude or inattention for a year or two, but for 14? No, I am not that gullible. I am not going to guess at motive, but it badly stretches the imagination to be told that this is some sort of accident, or as Rick now claims, that among the 5,110 days since the site began, he hasn't had time to moderate it - to slow or reverse the deterioration. To see the current state of FFL as the intentional act that it is, is the only believable explanation left. So, I am done playing, and being played by Rick on FFL. Congratulations to him on a job well done, though I wish I had caught on more quickly - lol. I owe you one dude. :-) It's all a colossal waste of time. All I have really learned from FFL is that 1) those who are lonely, bereft, obnoxious and have few friends spend that much time on a forum hassling other people. 2) Those who choose to bypass accountability use the internet to spread their shit. 3) Posting to forums where there is no moderation leads to megalomania in those so predisposed. Until someone who can either shut them up or shut it down decides to do so no amount of common sense, intelligence or reason will make one iota of difference. Creating and maintaining a forum where there is no moderation is like creating a society without law and order or consequences. FFL is a perfect replica of what would happen in the real world if all restraints and boundaries were removed from society. The only difference is that on the internet no one can actually club your stab you to death. Bore and insult you to death, maybe. === The following, also on The Peak is a rather revealing statement: ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : I've been watching the goings on over there over that past few days and I must confess. It's great to see my old mentor and boss, Judy, still in fine form. As we all know, a whole schwack of us were lucky enough to be her minions and cult followers and when she left we were terrified. I mean, I don't know about you, but knowing I no longer had Judy to watch my back I simply couldn't get out of FFL fast enough. So, thank the powers that be, Jim created The Peak as a safe haven from the reality posed by the ever perceptive and formidable bawee and Sally Ann. Try as I might I know, in my heart, that I will never be equal to their originality, lack of hypocrisy and well-rounded expertise in so many fields of life. Now, I can safely hide in the non-confrontational heaven we know of as The Peak where no one bothers with having an opinion and even if they did are far too afraid to express it as Jim is a narrow-minded tyrant and might throw us back to all
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show And you [steve] are on the playground complaining about what? I find this all rather interesting. It would seem Barry is faced with a potential unknown obstacle. But he is creative and a good writer, he should be able to weave around this if Doug remains a model of restraint. Exactly. My approach to this new Follow The Holy Yahoo Guidelines Or Else experiment is to do exactly that. I have resolved to never bother to read or reply to posts from any of the four people I consider trolls, and I will do my best to not even refer to them, so the question of insulting them or demeaning them shouldn't really come up. The fifth person I have considered a troll for the last year or so is now the moderator, so I may have to occasionally refer to him and even reply to him, but I hope I shall be able to do so with some modicum of decorum, as I have done in my posts today. I already made my concerns about possible lack of transparency problems with FFL moderation in a post yesterday, and if Doug is paying attention, he'll follow my suggestion and never ban someone without explaining *explicitly* which of the Yahoo Guidelines he feels the person being banned violated, and without re-publishing the offending post, so that others can either agree with his decision, or disagree with it. It should be an interesting experiment. Even if I respected Doug's abilities to pull off this exercise in herding cats (I don't), I wouldn't stand in the way of him *trying* to pull it off. And besides, it could be worse. He could be trying to moderate a Clown Forum: The Greatest Internet Flame Wars Are Happening on Clown-Forum.com | | | | | | | | | | | The Greatest Internet Flame Wars Are Happening on C...No matter how much the internet may change over the years, there are at least two constants: absurd flame wars, and the wildly specific message boards from which th... | | | | View on internet.gawker.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | |
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : How very interesting Xeno. Let's leave the-peak out of it for a moment. That would be awesome, if what you say is correct. This bit about Barry being creative and a good writer, etc., and giving the new regime an honest try. I see different mechanics at play here. I don't think Barry intends to go down that path. I think he is going to be as disruptive as possible, test the limits, and overall, be a constant complainer. I guess, we'll see won't we! Xeno vs. Ray (steve) Round 1. I have found it is not particularly useful to me to consider peoples' motivations on this forum, though I sometimes do formulate ideas in that category. In particular, when those who post speak of their own motivations, I am suspicious, being well aware of the duplicitous nature of our species. Can I be duplicitous. Probably. Why this fascination with the_peak? I post there sometimes. A certain amount of the ideological base of FFL departed to there, You realize this framing of more enlightened group is strictly your own pettiness coming through. That is known as irony, not pettiness. The Peak is self styled as more dedicated to enlightenment than FFL, but for the most part more knowledge of the nature of enlightenment can be found here. But there have been some good discussions on The Peak. Rather than proclaim the glories of enlightenment, FFL seems to delve more into the obstacles to enlightenment, the things in the way of clear experience. And those things by nature are dark if you are formulating enlightenment and ignorance in terms of light and dark. Ego, fears, misunderstanding, mistaken perception, irrationality, unfounded opinions, and cult entrapment. All these things come up here and you do not see the light until you punch through it all. So FFL is darker by nature in that people here are more interested in finding out what this is all about here, rather than simply assuming it is all happy and light, because of practising some specific branded technology. Note that even Doug seemed to prefer to be here; he is interested in the idea of enlightenment just as much the rest of us in his somewhat stodgy 19th-century Quaker way. I think he has felt that the discussion has drifted away from ideas down to personal rivalries, and he seems to have a personal affront to ideas that contradict certain spiritual teachings. That there are atheists here on FFL lends a certain spice to the opposition of ideas, because if an atheist is interested in spirituality, it is divorced entirely from religion, and spirituality and religion have traditionally been locked at the hip until recently. Looks like we have two of yas acting like a petulant children. This above sentence is an example of name calling, just like we used to do as children. Xeno, you're a grown man for god's sake. A senior citizen even. A man of accumulated knowledge. Partha, shake off this paltry faintheartedness!! My name is Xeno, not Partha. The sons of Zeus really do not care about those other fictitious spiritual characters. We have our own fictitious spiritual characters. And exactly what is my faintheartedness? That I tend to agree with Barry and Salyavin? Today's funny story. Last night one of my customers called me and said he had to leave for Panama in the morning to visit his ailing grandma. As he was in his mid to late 40's I said, that she must be in her 90's. He said older. She is 101! But that moment of cognitive dissonance was exquisite!! That is pretty tame cognitive dissonance. 'Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.' This might be why you dislike Barry because he will present you with some real cognitive dissonance. You realise that enlightenment is a true and utter joke, that it was never necessary to get enlightened? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : And you [steve] are on the playground complaining about what? I find this all rather interesting. It would seem Barry is faced with a potential unknown obstacle. But he is creative and a good writer, he should be able to weave around this if Doug remains a model of restraint. The guidelines are general rules so, for example, is it unkind to call someone stupid? Half the population of Earth is less intelligent than the other half. This issue is also being mentioned on The Peak — here is a sample from the 'more enlightened' group: == ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is being played for a chump over there. along with the other trolls. Just
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I'm sending this from my phone while out at a cafe, and to tell the truth I don't know how to start a brand new topic from my phone (let alone add my usual blue font color and formatting), so I'll just reply to this post to pass along a fun video I just rediscovered. It's just for fun, and shouldn't be construed to be a comment on the post below or on any particular person on Fairfield Life. Enjoy. best of Dr. Lizardo (Buckaroo Banzai) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw best of Dr. Lizardo (Buckaroo Banzai) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw the very best of John Lithgow (Lord John Whorfin / Dr. Emilio Lizardo) View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmdAlaOiMw Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : MJ, you are making a lot of assumptions here hypothetically splitting hairs. Trolling? I have no problem with your content here about Maharishi by case. That is different than when you step on the yahoo-groups guidelines where you are trying to hurt people. Now, for instance well before Rick tapped me for enforcement of the yahoo-group guideline as a FFL CEO I drew up an indictment of you against the yahoo-groups guidelines and was preparing to send it over to Rick for action. However it was then becoming apparent that you were reading the current of change coming here and were moderating yourself more in alignment with the yahoo-groups guidelines and even apologizing for misdeeds here. I did not send that indictment over to Rick so you were never tried on that indictment. That quite evidently was different than what you are trying for in this. However if you or anyone else don't wish to abide by the yahoo-groups guidelines I should not be glad to slow down the send-cycle of your posts to FFL and place them on to a 'moderated' status before releasing them to FFL, as I may get around to them. If you wish it all to be over more quickly I could drag out the indictment and review it here and it would be evident [ref FFL# 415306]. However right now I should wish to have people go forward from this point clean. The yahoo-groups guidelines themselves are quite simple and require of writers only some self-control. Have a nice day, -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : All right, well I disagree. Specifically, I disagree that there have to be facts to back up any insults or revilement I or others may toss out towards Marshy, TM and or the Movement. Does not my belief in such things make no difference? If the answer is no, then folks like Nappy Nabby would no longer be able to post crop circle crap or news of the perennially impending appearance of Maitreya. There are no facts to support such posts. In addition, the belief in facts any poster uses to back up their posts will not be universally accepted by all readers. I believe that colloidal silver is an excellent thing to use and back that assertion up with my own experiences, yet my friend Sal from across the Great Water believes them facts to be crap. Thus by your standards I cannot call Marshy a fraud unless I have a photo of him stuffing a suitcase full of cash and handing it off to Neal Patterson to transport to India and a photo of a grinning and slimmer Girish taking the suitcase from Neal's hand over in India. In addition I cannot personally adhere to the yahoo guidelines governing insults, because most of what I say about Marshy, TM and the Movement could certainly be construed by others as being insulting, but only be TM True Believers. So I fatalistically await my impending removal from FFL. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
MJ, you are making a lot of assumptions here hypothetically splitting hairs. Trolling? I have no problem with your content here about Maharishi by case. That is different than when you step on the yahoo-groups guidelines where you are trying to hurt people. Now, for instance well before Rick tapped me for enforcement of the yahoo-group guideline as a FFL CEO I drew up an indictment of you against the yahoo-groups guidelines and was preparing to send it over to Rick for action. However it was then becoming apparent that you were reading the current of change coming here and were moderating yourself more in alignment with the yahoo-groups guidelines and even apologizing for misdeeds here. I did not send that indictment over to Rick so you were never tried on that indictment. That quite evidently was different than what you are trying for in this. However if you or anyone else don't wish to abide by the yahoo-groups guidelines I should not be glad to slow down the send-cycle of your posts to FFL and place them on to a 'moderated' status before releasing them to FFL, as I may get around to them. If you wish it all to be over more quickly I could drag out the indictment and review it here and it would be evident [ref FFL# 415306]. However right now I should wish to have people go forward from this point clean. The yahoo-groups guidelines themselves are quite simple and require of writers only some self-control. Have a nice day, -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : All right, well I disagree. Specifically, I disagree that there have to be facts to back up any insults or revilement I or others may toss out towards Marshy, TM and or the Movement. Does not my belief in such things make no difference? If the answer is no, then folks like Nappy Nabby would no longer be able to post crop circle crap or news of the perennially impending appearance of Maitreya. There are no facts to support such posts. In addition, the belief in facts any poster uses to back up their posts will not be universally accepted by all readers. I believe that colloidal silver is an excellent thing to use and back that assertion up with my own experiences, yet my friend Sal from across the Great Water believes them facts to be crap. Thus by your standards I cannot call Marshy a fraud unless I have a photo of him stuffing a suitcase full of cash and handing it off to Neal Patterson to transport to India and a photo of a grinning and slimmer Girish taking the suitcase from Neal's hand over in India. In addition I cannot personally adhere to the yahoo guidelines governing insults, because most of what I say about Marshy, TM and the Movement could certainly be construed by others as being insulting, but only be TM True Believers. So I fatalistically await my impending removal from FFL. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I have found it is not particularly useful to me to consider peoples' motivations on this forum, though I sometimes do formulate ideas in that category. In particular, when those who post speak of their own motivations, I am suspicious, being well aware of the duplicitous nature of our species. Can I be duplicitous. Probably. Well, I guess I don't have an issue with simply forming an opinion about something. In this case whether a person is being honest in their interactions or not. Again, real world results can be instructive in this regard. You know seeing if the opinions we form about something are confirmed by everyday reality. But, if you feel it best to shy away from such conclusions, then that's the way you roll. Why this fascination with the_peak? I post there sometimes. A certain amount of the ideological base of FFL departed to there, You realize this framing of more enlightened group is strictly your own pettiness coming through. That is known as irony, not pettiness. The Peak is self styled as more dedicated to enlightenment than FFL, but for the most part more knowledge of the nature of enlightenment can be found here. But there have been some good discussions on The Peak. Rather than proclaim the glories of enlightenment, FFL seems to delve more into the obstacles to enlightenment, the things in the way of clear experience. And those things by nature are dark if you are formulating enlightenment and ignorance in terms of light and dark. Ego, fears, misunderstanding, mistaken perception, irrationality, unfounded opinions, and cult entrapment. All these things come up here and you do not see the light until you punch through it all. So FFL is darker by nature in that people here are more interested in finding out what this is all about here, rather than simply assuming it is all happy and light, because of practising some specific branded technology. Note that even Doug seemed to prefer to be here; he is interested in the idea of enlightenment just as much the rest of us in his somewhat stodgy 19th-century Quaker way. I think he has felt that the discussion has drifted away from ideas down to personal rivalries, and he seems to have a personal affront to ideas that contradict certain spiritual teachings. That there are atheists here on FFL lends a certain spice to the opposition of ideas, because if an atheist is interested in spirituality, it is divorced entirely from religion, and spirituality and religion have traditionally been locked at the hip until recently. Xen, as has been pointed our numerous times, several times a day for the last 20 years, (I am guessing), it is not the challenging that is the problem. It is what people perceive as misrepresenting their stance or opinion about something, for, what appears to be for purposes of just getting a reaction. Yes, your opinion, as frequently stated, is that it is beneficial for one's ongoing spiritual development. So, maybe this is a twain that is not going to be bridged. Looks like we have two of yas acting like a petulant children. This above sentence is an example of name calling, just like we used to do as children. Xeno, you're a grown man for god's sake. A senior citizen even. A man of accumulated knowledge. Partha, shake off this paltry faintheartedness!! My name is Xeno, not Partha. The sons of Zeus really do not care about those other fictitious spiritual characters. We have our own fictitious spiritual characters. And exactly what is my faintheartedness? That I tend to agree with Barry and Salyavin? Xeno, do you think I care who you do, or don't agree with? I know where you come down on, on issues discussed here. The fact that you appear so defensive about this, is rather telling, I would say, though. That and the fact you appear immune to someone making a joke. Today's funny story. Last night one of my customers called me and said he had to leave for Panama in the morning to visit his ailing grandma. As he was in his mid to late 40's I said, that she must be in her 90's. He said older. She is 101! But that moment of cognitive dissonance was exquisite!! That is pretty tame cognitive dissonance. 'Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.' This might be why you dislike Barry because he will present you with some real cognitive dissonance. You realise that enlightenment is a true and utter joke, that it was never necessary to get enlightened? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : And you [steve] are on the playground complaining about what? I find this all rather interesting. It
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Does the term 'unkindness' ever refer to a dead person? Great opening line. It's a fine, fairly warm sunset evening here on the patio at De La Soul, so I think I'll ponder it just the opening line and snip the rest of your excellent post. No offense intended. Really. My answer to your question is No. One can *by definition* never be unkind to a dead person. They're...uh...dead. Let's face it...to believe that there is someone still there enough in a dead person to feel that something said about them by one of the living was unkind, then you're saying that you believe they weren't enlightened, and thus still stuck in the reincarnation cycle. If they are enlightened in the Maharishi model, at death they become the drop merged with the ocean and there isn't any them still around to be unkind *to*. Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy. Some found this stuff said about a dead person so uptight-making and button-pushing that they freaked out and ran away to form their own cliques, in which they would presumably never have to hear the dead person treated so unkindly again. Others, including many who still hold the dead person in some regard, didn't pay much attention to it, and went on about living their lives. Go figure...different strokes for different folks. And so at the end of all this kerfuffle we find ourselves in a situation in which the people who pretended that someone was unkind to *them* because he was in their view unkind to a dead person (who by definition one cannot be unkind to) are still trying to get the person who they feel was unkind to that which one cannot possibly be unkind to. It's all kinda Zen and weird, if you ask me... :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Hi Barry, Listen, I know that for all kinds of reasons, you need to make this all about you. But it's not about you, or trying to get you. In fact, should you ever choose to adopt a more typical mode of interaction, one that does not involve the incessant, manic pushing of buttons, then you would find that you garner little, if any attention. Butbut, I am not sure you would be prepared for that degree of inattention. How bouts you give it a shot. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : snip And so at the end of all this kerfuffle we find ourselves in a situation in which the people who pretended that someone was unkind to *them* because he was in their view unkind to a dead person (who by definition one cannot be unkind to) are still trying to get the person who they feel was unkind to that which one cannot possibly be unkind to. It's all kinda Zen and weird, if you ask me... :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Does the term 'unkindness' ever refer to a dead person? Great opening line. It's a fine, fairly warm sunset evening here on the patio at De La Soul, so I think I'll ponder it just the opening line and snip the rest of your excellent post. No offense intended. Really. My answer to your question is No. One can *by definition* never be unkind to a dead person. They're...uh...dead. Let's face it...to believe that there is someone still there enough in a dead person to feel that something said about them by one of the living was unkind, then you're saying that you believe they weren't enlightened, and thus still stuck in the reincarnation cycle. If they are enlightened in the Maharishi model, at death they become the drop merged with the ocean and there isn't any them still around to be unkind *to*. Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy. Some found this stuff said about a dead person so uptight-making and button-pushing that they freaked out and ran away to form their own cliques, in which they would presumably never have to hear the dead person treated so unkindly again. Others, including many who still hold the dead person in some regard, didn't pay much attention to it, and went on about living their lives. Go figure...different strokes for different folks. And so at the end of all this kerfuffle we find ourselves in a situation in which the people who pretended that someone was unkind to *them* because he was in their view unkind to a dead person (who by definition one cannot be unkind to) are still trying to get the person who they feel was unkind to that which one cannot possibly be unkind to. It's all kinda Zen and weird, if you ask me... :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Does the term 'unkindness' ever refer to a dead person? Great opening line. It's a fine, fairly warm sunset evening here on the patio at De La Soul, so I think I'll ponder it just the opening line and snip the rest of your excellent post. No offense intended. Really. My answer to your question is No. One can *by definition* never be unkind to a dead person. They're...uh...dead. Let's face it...to believe that there is someone still there enough in a dead person to feel that something said about them by one of the living was unkind, then you're saying that you believe they weren't enlightened, and thus still stuck in the reincarnation cycle. If they are enlightened in the Maharishi model, at death they become the drop merged with the ocean and there isn't any them still around to be unkind *to*. Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy. Some found this stuff said about a dead person so uptight-making and button-pushing that they freaked out and ran away to form their own cliques, in which they would presumably never have to hear the dead person treated so unkindly again. Others, including many who still hold the dead person in some regard, didn't pay much attention to it, and went on about living their lives. Go figure...different strokes for different folks. And so at the end of all this kerfuffle we find ourselves in a situation in which the people who pretended that someone was unkind to *them* because he was in their view unkind to a dead person (who by definition one cannot be unkind to) are still trying to get the person who they feel was unkind to that which one cannot possibly be unkind to. It's all kinda Zen and weird, if you ask me... :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
If one were to be actually honest, instead of just pretending to be, two points would need to be made: 1. The insult wasn't really to Maharishi; it was to those who revere him. It was said that if they had witnessed him sexually abusing a baby, they would nevertheless continue to maintain he was a life celibate. The hypothetical image of Maharishi abusing a baby was tasteless and offensive, but it was the vicious slur on his followers that triggered the upset and outrage. 2. It wasn't just this one entirely gratuitous insult, malicious as it was, that led TM supporters to walk out. This was just the most recent in a very long and relentless sequence of savage, sadistic insults by TM critics personally targeting TM supporters. Barry wrote, in part: Which is interesting in the context of all this this latest soap opera hysteria on Fairfield Life, because if people are honest, what it's really about is that a few living people became so offended at what was said in passing about a dead person that they went bat-shit crazy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
All right, well I disagree. Specifically, I disagree that there have to be facts to back up any insults or revilement I or others may toss out towards Marshy, TM and or the Movement. Does not my belief in such things make no difference? If the answer is no, then folks like Nappy Nabby would no longer be able to post crop circle crap or news of the perennially impending appearance of Maitreya. There are no facts to support such posts. In addition, the belief in facts any poster uses to back up their posts will not be universally accepted by all readers. I believe that colloidal silver is an excellent thing to use and back that assertion up with my own experiences, yet my friend Sal from across the Great Water believes them facts to be crap. Thus by your standards I cannot call Marshy a fraud unless I have a photo of him stuffing a suitcase full of cash and handing it off to Neal Patterson to transport to India and a photo of a grinning and slimmer Girish taking the suitcase from Neal's hand over in India. In addition I cannot personally adhere to the yahoo guidelines governing insults, because most of what I say about Marshy, TM and the Movement could certainly be construed by others as being insulting, but only be TM True Believers. So I fatalistically await my impending removal from FFL. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show DearMJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderatinginterests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within theYahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to someother people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fairconversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident factto back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slursomeone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : ThanksR-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experiencefor the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don'tbe Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightenedin their guidance
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
And you [steve] are on the playground complaining about what? I find this all rather interesting. It would seem Barry is faced with a potential unknown obstacle. But he is creative and a good writer, he should be able to weave around this if Doug remains a model of restraint. The guidelines are general rules so, for example, is it unkind to call someone stupid? Half the population of Earth is less intelligent than the other half. This issue is also being mentioned on The Peak — here is a sample from the 'more enlightened' group: == ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is being played for a chump over there. along with the other trolls. Just as I and others who oppose trolling have been. No one runs a site for 14 years, promising to change it when things get hot, and yet lets things grossly deteriorate, without this being completely intentional. I can believe ineptitude or inattention for a year or two, but for 14? No, I am not that gullible. I am not going to guess at motive, but it badly stretches the imagination to be told that this is some sort of accident, or as Rick now claims, that among the 5,110 days since the site began, he hasn't had time to moderate it - to slow or reverse the deterioration. To see the current state of FFL as the intentional act that it is, is the only believable explanation left. So, I am done playing, and being played by Rick on FFL. Congratulations to him on a job well done, though I wish I had caught on more quickly - lol. I owe you one dude. :-) It's all a colossal waste of time. All I have really learned from FFL is that 1) those who are lonely, bereft, obnoxious and have few friends spend that much time on a forum hassling other people. 2) Those who choose to bypass accountability use the internet to spread their shit. 3) Posting to forums where there is no moderation leads to megalomania in those so predisposed. Until someone who can either shut them up or shut it down decides to do so no amount of common sense, intelligence or reason will make one iota of difference. Creating and maintaining a forum where there is no moderation is like creating a society without law and order or consequences. FFL is a perfect replica of what would happen in the real world if all restraints and boundaries were removed from society. The only difference is that on the internet no one can actually club your stab you to death. Bore and insult you to death, maybe. === The following, also on The Peak is a rather revealing statement: ---In the_p...@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : I've been watching the goings on over there over that past few days and I must confess. It's great to see my old mentor and boss, Judy, still in fine form. As we all know, a whole schwack of us were lucky enough to be her minions and cult followers and when she left we were terrified. I mean, I don't know about you, but knowing I no longer had Judy to watch my back I simply couldn't get out of FFL fast enough. So, thank the powers that be, Jim created The Peak as a safe haven from the reality posed by the ever perceptive and formidable bawee and Sally Ann. Try as I might I know, in my heart, that I will never be equal to their originality, lack of hypocrisy and well-rounded expertise in so many fields of life. Now, I can safely hide in the non-confrontational heaven we know of as The Peak where no one bothers with having an opinion and even if they did are far too afraid to express it as Jim is a narrow-minded tyrant and might throw us back to all that is true and sacred back at FFL and I certainly don't have the moxie to withstand that... === While I post on The Peak sometimes, because I do not really have The Peak mindset, I do get opposition for things I say, and awoelflebater seems to provide most of the opposition I experience. It is interesting that in posting these things I have perhaps violated Yahoo guidelines: Post your own content. Have the other group member's permissions before re-posting their content. This goes for you too, moderators.While I am posting my own content, I have referred to other posts as well being a member to two groups. Also, if you respond to a post and click 'message history', which Yahoo allows, you are then reposting other group members' content automatically using a Yahoo provided service. Without doing this, you cannot often tell to whom the response is directed. The guidelines however do not say you cannot refer to content in other places on the Internet. So if you repost content from another Yahoo group does that violate the guidelines when it is the inspiration for one's own original content, or is it allowed because it is not your own group? If you quote a poem by Shakespeare as an example of what you are
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Maybe Rick gave Buck the job to learn how he would fail. On 06/08/2015 10:44 AM, jason_gre...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Allowing Buck to moderate is a bad idea. He dishes out the same Kool-Aid. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GfG0ofh8-MM/VXQ-eaKldPI/A_A/SKumQYyjUYs/s910/Kool_Aid_1956.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GfG0ofh8-MM/VXQ-eaKldPI/A_A/SKumQYyjUYs/s910/Kool_Aid_1956.jpg --- jamesalan735@... wrote : *Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more.* He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. Click on the link below to see a sample of how Doug Hamilton has commonly used FFL over the years. This is from a few weeks ago. Posts such as this are interspersed with incessant whining about how FFL is inappropriately run. In the hiring business, a common phrase is Hire for attitude, train for skill. Well, I doubt if there will be any training for skill in this moderator position. Based on my observations of his approach to FFL, I don't see that Doug has either the attitude or the capacity to 'moderate' himself or FFL. However, the deed is done, and I guess only time will tell. Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 image https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Mana... View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Preview by Yahoo --- rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote ---dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. *Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more.*He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. --- turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. *From:*j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:j_alexander_stanley@...%20[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Allowing Buck to moderate is a bad idea. He dishes out the same Kool-Aid. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GfG0ofh8-MM/VXQ-eaKldPI/A_A/SKumQYyjUYs/s910/Kool_Aid_1956.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GfG0ofh8-MM/VXQ-eaKldPI/A_A/SKumQYyjUYs/s910/Kool_Aid_1956.jpg --- jamesalan735@... wrote : Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. Click on the link below to see a sample of how Doug Hamilton has commonly used FFL over the years. This is from a few weeks ago. Posts such as this are interspersed with incessant whining about how FFL is inappropriately run. In the hiring business, a common phrase is Hire for attitude, train for skill. Well, I doubt if there will be any training for skill in this moderator position. Based on my observations of his approach to FFL, I don't see that Doug has either the attitude or the capacity to 'moderate' himself or FFL. However, the deed is done, and I guess only time will tell. Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Mana... View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Preview by Yahoo --- rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote --- dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. --- turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:j_alexander_stanley@...%20[FairfieldLife]; FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. --- dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I have not posted here for a while, although I have been reading some of the posts. I applaud the decision to appoint a moderator, which is long overdue. I suggest that some flexibility might be adopted in moderating this group. Posters who are ajudged to have violated the Yahoo! guidelines might first be given a warning before being banned. There could even be two warnings, creating a kind of “three strikes and you’re out” system. Another approach would simply be for the moderator to delete without comment or further repercussions posts deemed to have violated the guidelines. Also, not all banishments, perhaps none of them, should be forever. People could be banned for a week, two weeks, a month, whatever. Lengthy bans of, say, more than six months, could be imposed only by unanimous agreeement of three people: the newly appointed moderator, plus Rick and Alex. Perhaps a system could be developed that would use some or all of these suggestions, as appropriate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jamesalan735@... wrote : Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. Click on the link below to see a sample of how Doug Hamilton has commonly used FFL over the years. This is from a few weeks ago. Posts such as this are interspersed with incessant whining about how FFL is inappropriately run. In the hiring business, a common phrase is Hire for attitude, train for skill. Well, I doubt if there will be any training for skill in this moderator position. Based on my observations of his approach to FFL, I don't see that Doug has either the attitude or the capacity to 'moderate' himself or FFL. However, the deed is done, and I guess only time will tell. Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Mana... View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
That's reasonable. I wonder what Doug is thinking now? What are you thinking Doug? It would be nice if you truly started to talk with us, considering the wide gulf in what we think is real. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Awww, what say les give Doug a chance. Heck , he hasn't banned me for calling Marshy (well deserved) names so he's ok in my book. Besides, Rick has promised to tan his hide if he crosses that moderator line. From: jamesalan735@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 12:36 PM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I think you must have misunderstood something I said again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I am sorry your memory is not what it used to be. You used to be able to pull something up from the past in a snap. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Oh, I still stand by what I said. Not sure where you got the idea I'd dropped it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I do not see why it would be necessary to understand you because that never seems possible anyway. Nice to see you have dropped the 'I stand by what I said' approach. Relying on what one has said in the past has issues. For example, it is possible we are smarter now than in the past and need to revise our thinking. Or maybe, less smart. I do have an hypothesis about your recent posting: that you think Barry's posting will be controlled in some way now, though it remains to be seen just how that will work out, as you two in the past seemed to be the primary polar opposites on FFL. Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't think I need to explain anything to you. I think if you reread what I wrote, carefully this time--several times if necessary--you'll see why your question was based on a misunderstanding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : 'You are holding...' was a question. Note the question mark at the end of sentence. It was some sort of figurative language, but the sentence began with the word 'you'. Already giving commands? I am under no obligation to reread anything here. Note that rereading something does not necessarily result in the understanding someone else desires one to have. If that is what you desire, then the best method is to explain what you wanted them to understand in some other way, and keep doing that until they do understand. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Does the You are holding... refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I am sorry your memory is not what it used to be. You used to be able to pull something up from the past in a snap. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Oh, I still stand by what I said. Not sure where you got the idea I'd dropped it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I do not see why it would be necessary to understand you because that never seems possible anyway. Nice to see you have dropped the 'I stand by what I said' approach. Relying on what one has said in the past has issues. For example, it is possible we are smarter now than in the past and need to revise our thinking. Or maybe, less smart. I do have an hypothesis about your recent posting: that you think Barry's posting will be controlled in some way now, though it remains to be seen just how that will work out, as you two in the past seemed to be the primary polar opposites on FFL. Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't think I need to explain anything to you. I think if you reread what I wrote, carefully this time--several times if necessary--you'll see why your question was based on a misunderstanding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : 'You are holding...' was a question. Note the question mark at the end of sentence. It was some sort of figurative language, but the sentence began with the word 'you'. Already giving commands? I am under no obligation to reread anything here. Note that rereading something does not necessarily result in the understanding someone else desires one to have. If that is what you desire, then the best method is to explain what you wanted them to understand in some other way, and keep doing that until they do understand. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Does the You are holding... refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Easy Barry, easy. A rag, please to wipe the pouring sweat from Barry's brow. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Thanks for responding, Rick. While you're still here, can you please explain to us exactly HOW Doug will enforce the sentence I've highlighted below in red? What exactly is he allowed to do and not do to ensure adherence to Yahoo's guidelines? My experience is that it's better to ask these kinds of questions *before* possible abuse of authority happens, not afterwards. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:j_alexander_stanley@...%20[FairfieldLife]; FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... mailto:reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Serious_Richard brings up in this particular thread an important point about privacy on FFL. From the beginning Rick has been intent on creating a safe-space of privacy for folks to post on FFL. Rick's principles in creating safe-space have been under attack, degraded and methodically violated by some writers here evidently to abuse or intimidate other folks personally who have been members of the community of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks for offering this, Serious. Yes I feel this is an excellent example that you offer of precedence in how to directly moderate a list that has gone so bad like this. I shall make note of it and emulate Rick in this as much as possible. The yahoo-groups guidelines themselves are quite simple and require of writers only some self-control. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rich...@rwilliams.us wrote : Just for the record, I should point out that Rick banned me from the group without sending me a single message or email explaining why. So, I appealed to him and he reinstated my posting privileges. Apparently an informant objected to my using their real name, although they had previously posted under their real name. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. The really sad part of this is that Barry has not apologized to me for over two decades for posting my real name on a.m.t. Go figure. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance? Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Taxi, brilliant! Absofuckinlutely brilliant. Start your own group and harp on life's problems to your hearts content. Please, please do it. I nominate you as initiator, or moderator, or whatever. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Let's just see how it turns out. We could always create Fairfield Life II if it does not. Here is the current description of Fairfield Life, in case any of us have forgotten: Group Description Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Management, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1971. There are about 2000 Transcendental Meditation practitioners here, as well as many others pursuing various spiritual paths. What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell We often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM Movement, which may not interest some, but that's why God created the delete key. Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, etc. The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions. ~ The I Ching Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. Whatever you think, it's more than that ~ Incredible String Band You can lurk without joining, but you have to join to post. Members can access Files, Photos, Links, and Database. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~ Buddha Take what you need and leave the rest. ~ The Band I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for the truth; and truth rewarded me. ~ Simone de Beauvoir ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Jesus, the guy appears to be in full panic mode. EMTs available, by any chance? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out spammers, and make sure there's no porn or other content that would get FFL categorized as an adult group, where it would be much less visible on the 'net. For a time, I was also tasked with enforcing the moronic posting limit. WRT colloidal silver, I would only add that it should not be taken on a regular basis, and even at 20 PPM, no more than 6oz should be taken per day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : J Alexander Stanley is supposed to be the moderator, but he mostly is busy making colloidal silver and cooking meat at low temps for a loong time (wish I had some now). Personally I like his post on what he cooks better than I would any moderation stuff. And I appreciated him giving me the info on his silver maker. So thus far, I am quite pleased at the moderate role J Alexander plays as moderator. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Peep Show
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks for offering this, Serious. Yes I feel this is an excellent example that your offer of precedence in how to directly moderate a list that has gone so bad like this. I shall make note of it and emulate Rick in this as much as possible. The yahoo-groups guidelines themselves are quite simple and require of writers only some self-control. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rich...@rwilliams.us wrote : Just for the record, I should point out that Rick banned me from the group without sending me a single message or email explaining why. So, I appealed to him and he reinstated my posting privileges. Apparently an informant objected to my using their real name, although they had previously posted under their real name. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. The really sad part of this is that Barry has not apologized to me for over two decades for posting my real name on a.m.t. Go figure. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance? Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Please ignore what he says about me. He has it completely wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Serious_Richard brings up in this particular thread an important point about privacy on FFL. From the beginning Rick has been intent on creating a safe-space of privacy for folks to post on FFL. Rick's principles in creating safe-space have been under attack, degraded and methodically violated by some writers here evidently to abuse or intimidate other folks personally who have been members of the community of FFL. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. Exactly. organizations like ISIS -- and individual narcissistic psychopaths -- want more than anything else To Be Paid Attention To. How does a warrior defeat them? Easy. Don't. Don't give them any attention.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Awww, what say les give Doug a chance. Heck , he hasn't banned me for calling Marshy (well deserved) names so he's ok in my book. Besides, Rick has promised to tan his hide if he crosses that moderator line. From: jamesalan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 12:36 PM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. Click on the link below to see a sample of how Doug Hamilton has commonly used FFL over the years. This is from a few weeks ago. Posts such as this are interspersed with incessant whining about how FFL is inappropriately run. In the hiring business, a common phrase is Hire for attitude, train for skill. Well, I doubt if there will be any training for skill in this moderator position. Based on my observations of his approach to FFL, I don't see that Doug has either the attitude or the capacity to 'moderate' himself or FFL. However, the deed is done, and I guess only time will tell. Fairfield Life || |||| Fairfield Life Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Mana...|| | View on groups.yahoo.com |Preview by Yahoo| || ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYouIt was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote :Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote :Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Good Advice. Although ISIS does have rather bad manners, and firearms. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. Exactly. organizations like ISIS -- and individual narcissistic psychopaths -- want more than anything else To Be Paid Attention To. How does a warrior defeat them? Easy. Don't. Don't give them any attention.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Oh, I still stand by what I said. Not sure where you got the idea I'd dropped it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I do not see why it would be necessary to understand you because that never seems possible anyway. Nice to see you have dropped the 'I stand by what I said' approach. Relying on what one has said in the past has issues. For example, it is possible we are smarter now than in the past and need to revise our thinking. Or maybe, less smart. I do have an hypothesis about your recent posting: that you think Barry's posting will be controlled in some way now, though it remains to be seen just how that will work out, as you two in the past seemed to be the primary polar opposites on FFL. Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't think I need to explain anything to you. I think if you reread what I wrote, carefully this time--several times if necessary--you'll see why your question was based on a misunderstanding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : 'You are holding...' was a question. Note the question mark at the end of sentence. It was some sort of figurative language, but the sentence began with the word 'you'. Already giving commands? I am under no obligation to reread anything here. Note that rereading something does not necessarily result in the understanding someone else desires one to have. If that is what you desire, then the best method is to explain what you wanted them to understand in some other way, and keep doing that until they do understand. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Does the You are holding... refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. Exactly. organizations like ISIS -- and individual narcissistic psychopaths -- want more than anything else To Be Paid Attention To. How does a warrior defeat them? Easy. Don't. Don't give them any attention. Sounds like a good idea. Why don't you try it sometime?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
This doesn't seem to me like a good way to welcome the new moderator, to suggest he might go off his rocker because he is religious. Obviously you're interested in religion and the spiritual movement in Fairfield, otherwise you wouldn't even be here. All Doug is asking you to do is be civil and avoid starting an online riot or flame war. Thanks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, no, ... you need some restraints on your mental excesses. It was an alternative suggestion if Doug went off his rocker, but so far we have no evidence of what might happen, which is pretty much the way life is anyway. Now that Doug has assumed this office, for which he has been campaigning since the universe began, he does have a responsibility both to Rick and to us, so I do not see why he should not be allowed the attempt. To do this right you have to step out of your personal quirks and manage a larger realm, so it might be a good learning experience. Doug seems to have a sort of religious background, whereas many of us here do not or abandoned these background indoctrinations. That would mean many things some of us think are false, Doug may think are true. I wonder if he will feel a conflict? Question: why seventhray? Seven rays is a common metaphor in a lot of spiritual traditions. Why not eight, or nine? Problem here is we have a lot of half rays. Together they could add up though. Spiritual traditions seem to have a lot of made up numbers. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Taxi, brilliant! Absofuckinlutely brilliant. Start your own group and harp on life's problems to your hearts content. Please, please do it. I nominate you as initiator, or moderator, or whatever. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Let's just see how it turns out. We could always create Fairfield Life II if it does not. Here is the current description of Fairfield Life, in case any of us have forgotten: Group Description Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Management, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1971. There are about 2000 Transcendental Meditation practitioners here, as well as many others pursuing various spiritual paths. What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell We often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM Movement, which may not interest some, but that's why God created the delete key. Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, etc. The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions. ~ The I Ching Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. Whatever you think, it's more than that ~ Incredible String Band You can lurk without joining, but you have to join to post. Members can access Files, Photos, Links, and Database. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~ Buddha Take what you need and leave the rest. ~ The Band I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for the truth; and truth rewarded me. ~ Simone de Beauvoir ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks A., good to know. In going forward with moderation on FFL, protection of privacy has always been a mainstay feature of FFL as Rick's free speech list. This feature of protection has been under siege and fallen to a form of a disrespect used by some writers on FFL. Everyone take this as a warning right now going forward: where someone posting to the list uses an anonymous screen name it is quite proper form on FFL as a yahoo-group to respond to posts using a person's screen name and make no mention of their real name otherwise. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote : Please ignore what he says about me. He has it completely wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Serious_Richard brings up in this particular thread an important point about privacy on FFL. From the beginning Rick has been intent on creating a safe-space of privacy for folks to post on FFL. Rick's principles in creating safe-space have been under attack, degraded and methodically violated by some writers here evidently to abuse or intimidate other folks personally who have been members of the community of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks for offering this, Serious. Yes I feel this is an excellent example that you offer of precedence in how to directly moderate a list that has gone so bad like this. I shall make note of it and emulate Rick in this as much as possible. The yahoo-groups guidelines themselves are quite simple and require of writers only some self-control. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rich...@rwilliams.us wrote : Just for the record, I should point out that Rick banned me from the group without sending me a single message or email explaining why. So, I appealed to him and he reinstated my posting privileges. Apparently an informant objected to my using their real name, although they had previously posted under their real name. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. The really sad part of this is that Barry has not apologized to me for over two decades for posting my real name on a.m.t. Go figure. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance? Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
No, no, ... you need some restraints on your mental excesses. It was an alternative suggestion if Doug went off his rocker, but so far we have no evidence of what might happen, which is pretty much the way life is anyway. Now that Doug has assumed this office, for which he has been campaigning since the universe began, he does have a responsibility both to Rick and to us, so I do not see why he should not be allowed the attempt. To do this right you have to step out of your personal quirks and manage a larger realm, so it might be a good learning experience. Doug seems to have a sort of religious background, whereas many of us here do not or abandoned these background indoctrinations. That would mean many things some of us think are false, Doug may think are true. I wonder if he will feel a conflict? Question: why seventhray? Seven rays is a common metaphor in a lot of spiritual traditions. Why not eight, or nine? Problem here is we have a lot of half rays. Together they could add up though. Spiritual traditions seem to have a lot of made up numbers. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Taxi, brilliant! Absofuckinlutely brilliant. Start your own group and harp on life's problems to your hearts content. Please, please do it. I nominate you as initiator, or moderator, or whatever. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Let's just see how it turns out. We could always create Fairfield Life II if it does not. Here is the current description of Fairfield Life, in case any of us have forgotten: Group Description Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Management, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1971. There are about 2000 Transcendental Meditation practitioners here, as well as many others pursuing various spiritual paths. What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell We often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM Movement, which may not interest some, but that's why God created the delete key. Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, etc. The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions. ~ The I Ching Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. Whatever you think, it's more than that ~ Incredible String Band You can lurk without joining, but you have to join to post. Members can access Files, Photos, Links, and Database. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~ Buddha Take what you need and leave the rest. ~ The Band I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for the truth; and truth rewarded me. ~ Simone de Beauvoir ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Xeno, I admit, I'm having a gas thinking about this new period of FFL. Call it The Buck Period, or I know, Passing the Buck to Buck. I think it's fantastic. Has anyone checked the Leiden Dailies to see if Barry has posted an obituary for FFL. Jesus, how I felt some compassion for him this morning. Hell, we saw all five phases of grieving, anger acceptance, etc. in the span of about five minutes. Thank you God for that display! Psst, seriously, xeno, he may need a friend to lean during such times. I hope you will be up to it. In a pinch, I'll see what I can do. I say, Buck, the conservative mediator in Fairfield, full steam ahead. Now, what was it we were talking about. Oh yea, my mental excesses. Xeno, if we go down that path, I think you'll realize that whatever faults you find about yourself, you can be thankful. So, nuff about that. What's next? Oh, yea, that ray thing. Yea, I admit to have an abiding interest in the Ascended Master thing. Just something I think about now and then. Don't worry, I'm not gonna try to sell you on something. Shit, I swear I just felt the presence of Barry about to swoop down on that one. Ducked just in time I guess. So, yea, seventhray goes with the Ascended Master stuff. Will the new regime in place, can I get a pass on that? Pretty please. Love ya, Ray, or halfray, or quarter ray, or maybe sting ray. Hooyah! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, no, ... you need some restraints on your mental excesses. It was an alternative suggestion if Doug went off his rocker, but so far we have no evidence of what might happen, which is pretty much the way life is anyway. Now that Doug has assumed this office, for which he has been campaigning since the universe began, he does have a responsibility both to Rick and to us, so I do not see why he should not be allowed the attempt. To do this right you have to step out of your personal quirks and manage a larger realm, so it might be a good learning experience. Doug seems to have a sort of religious background, whereas many of us here do not or abandoned these background indoctrinations. That would mean many things some of us think are false, Doug may think are true. I wonder if he will feel a conflict? Question: why seventhray? Seven rays is a common metaphor in a lot of spiritual traditions. Why not eight, or nine? Problem here is we have a lot of half rays. Together they could add up though. Spiritual traditions seem to have a lot of made up numbers. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Taxi, brilliant! Absofuckinlutely brilliant. Start your own group and harp on life's problems to your hearts content. Please, please do it. I nominate you as initiator, or moderator, or whatever. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Let's just see how it turns out. We could always create Fairfield Life II if it does not. Here is the current description of Fairfield Life, in case any of us have forgotten: Group Description Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Management, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1971. There are about 2000 Transcendental Meditation practitioners here, as well as many others pursuing various spiritual paths. What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell We often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM Movement, which may not interest some, but that's why God created the delete key. Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, etc. The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions. ~ The I Ching Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. Whatever you think, it's more than that ~ Incredible String Band You can lurk without joining, but you have to join to post. Members can access Files, Photos, Links, and Database. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~ Buddha Take what you need and leave the rest. ~ The Band I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for the truth; and truth
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution” and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your cooperative collaboration on this. -JaiGuruYou! Doug, to help people new to moderation understand the kinds of things you think are acceptable, as opposed to things you'll be looking to censor, I thought I'd pass along some examples of comments you DON'T find to be unkind, belligerent, exploitative, degrading, insulting, slurs, profanity or ranting. These comments were all posted since you [Doug Hamilton, a name I assume I can use because it's in your posting ID, whereas I will never be able to refer to myself as Barry any more because it's *not* in my posting ID] became moderator of FFL, and you didn't say a word about them, even though you're an active member of the forum on which they were posted. Because you've been such a vocal spokesman for the need to follow the Yahoo Guidelines genuflect to the letter, and because you're so honest and moral and all, we know you would have spoken up if you felt that they DIDN'T follow the guidelines. All of these comments appeared in the last couple of days on THE_PEAK. I'm passing them along so that posters here -- unaccustomed to the uplifting, high-vibe way in which posters over on that moderated forum conduct themselves and treat other people in their speech -- can learn from them and know what our new moderator Doug Hamilton considers *acceptable* posts that follow the Yahoo Guidelines. No need to thank me. I'm just trying to do my part for moderation... So, it appears that while Rick refuses to moderate the hyenas over at FFL he is prepared to moderate his new moderator without moderation. You already have dingleberry whining to Rick, you have our resident sociopath [Anartaxius] trying to out talk and outwit Judy with some attempt to point score with his idol goosebarry, you've got the ever-charming jamesalan emerging out of his hidey hole to comment in his usual inane manner... The internet was tailor made for cowards and bullies and a perfect sampling are a few over at my old alma mater [FFL]. Let's see if Buck's got the chops to stand up to the overgrown brats over there. All I have really learned from FFL is that 1) those who are lonely, bereft, obnoxious and have few friends spend that much time on a forum hassling other people. 2) Those who choose to bypass accountability use the internet to spread their shit. 3) Posting to forums where there is no moderation leads to megalomania in those so predisposed. FFL is a perfect replica of what would happen in the real world if all restraints and boundaries were removed from society. The only difference is that on the internet no one can actually club your stab you to death. [Written about Rick Archer, posted by the *owner* and supposed moderator of THE_PEAK, the 'moderated' site Doug wants to make FFL more like] No one runs a site for 14 years, promising to change it when things get hot, and yet lets things grossly deteriorate, without this being completely intentional. I can believe ineptitude or inattention for a year or two, but for 14? No, I am not that gullible. I've been watching the goings on over there over that past few days and I must confess. It's great to see my old mentor and boss, Judy, still in fine form. As we all know, a whole schwack of us were lucky enough to be her minions and cult followers and when she left we were terrified. I mean, I don't know about you, but knowing I no longer had Judy to watch my back I simply couldn't get out of FFL fast enough. Even so, how lucky we are to have Xeno [Anartaxius] as a shining example of strength and independent thought - unencumbered by those messy characteristics like emotion or feeling? The only other guy I really miss having here is that barrel-full-of-giggles-and-chuckles Empty [Emptybill]. Now there's a happy and positive human for you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Well, Rick after long felt thought and qualifying interviews for this job has brought me on to FFL as a chief enforcement officer [CEO] of yahoo-groups guidelines. I am honored to work for him. I have always looked up to him in the many years I have known him. As such I shall always be willing to switch on the moderating box within someone's membership to FFL to have their posts routed for prior moderation review before releasing them out to the larger list. -AJaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
In moderation at this point I feel “the past is a lesser state of evolution” and I am going forward with a clean slate on everyone and not one is on moderation in any way from this point. I would only suggest in our going forward that folks take the time to actually read the Yahoo-groups guidelines if they want to continue fluidly posting on FFL. We should appreciate your cooperative collaboration on this. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Well, Rick after long felt thought and qualifying interviews for this job has brought me on to FFL as a chief enforcement officer [CEO] of yahoo-groups guidelines. I am honored to work for him. I have always looked up to him in the many years I have known him. As such I shall always be willing to switch on the moderating box within someone's membership to FFL to have their posts routed for prior moderation review before releasing them out to the larger list. -AJaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Well, Rick after long felt thought and qualifying interviews for this job has brought me on to FFL as a chief enforcement officer [CEO] of yahoo-groups guidelines. I am honored to work for him. I have always looked up to him in the many years I have known him. As such I shall always be willing to switch on the moderating box within someone's membership to FFL to have their posts routed for prior moderation review before releasing them out to the larger list. -AJaiGuruYou! Excellent news. I can think of four posters (we all know who they are) here who's sole contribution is trolling, insulting and trying to start and prolong petty, irrelevant arguments and petty grievances. I look forward to not having to scroll past their self-centred, topic-free drivel any longer. Great minds discuss ideas. Contribute constructively or leave! PS, don't let the power go to your head Doug. You may not like people's opinions but that doesn't mean they aren't valid. Make sure you judge us by what it says on the homepage rather than your own ideas about what FFL should be coz we'll be able to tell if you're picking on creative people for pre-moderation and leaving the whining trolls alone. They've gotta go. If you want to save this place that is, and what would be the point of a moderator if you don't? --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
If this wordy, badly written, convoluted, and incoherent paragraph below is a sign of what's to come - and I think it is exactly what we can expect - then let the fun begin! Hell and Handbasket come to mind. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Dear MJ; Son, I have not problem with your content here. My moderating interests are in the parity of the use and impact of words within the Yahoo-groups guidelines. Shocking as your content may be to some other people's sensibility these comment may possibly make fair conversation on Fairfieldlife at yahoo-groups [FFL] so long as there is some evident fact to back them up [reference to the testimony already in the FFL archive] ..and they are not used simply as a means to slur someone on a public forum. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out spammers, and make sure there's no porn or other content that would get FFL categorized as an adult group, where it would be much less visible on the 'net. For a time, I was also tasked with enforcing the moronic posting limit. WRT colloidal silver, I would only add that it should not be taken on a regular basis, and even at 20 PPM, no more than 6oz should be taken per day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : J Alexander Stanley is supposed to be the moderator, but he mostly is busy making colloidal silver and cooking meat at low temps for a loong time (wish I had some now). Personally I like his post on what he cooks better than I would any moderation stuff. And I appreciated him giving me the info on his silver maker. So thus far, I am quite pleased at the moderate role J Alexander plays as moderator. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Peep Show ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Moderation ain't working, Doug, or haven't you noticed? There basically is NO moderation on this forum. Rick has encouraged us all to ponder these deep questions, but when it attracts trolls, he bails. No problem now that I have adjusted, but let's please not act as if someone is EVER going to do anything per the Yahoo Guidelines here. It is imo a useless thing to bring up at this point. I thought you left? Left to start a group with moderation? Why not stay there if you can't cope with being here? Why the endless whining? Is it some sort of denial of service for the people who actually like it here? Are you on some sort of mission to save us from ourselves? You are the irritating troll, do you understand? You and your mates who also never contribute anything. Go away. Nothing is going to change here because we like chatting and having fun. Go away and stop spoiling it. You and your mates are tedious beyond words. Go away. You are the trolls. Go away. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : It is true the original post by Turqb was the meme of a slur in violation of the Yahoo-groups guidelines and should have been moderated simply then by the group owner. Moderation is simple to do, either ask someone to withdraw/delete such a post themselves or a moderator remove it and suspend the perp's membership posting privilege. Either-or. Ask the person for some self-restraint and if they don't come right through then clip their membership privilege. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are quite reasonable. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: reverse_archery@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Does the You are holding... refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You
are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK?
From: authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled
differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along
with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that
only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in
my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used.
That would be pretty silly after all this time.
But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend
has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used
her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost
everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920 -- #yiv0430638920ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920ygrp-mkp #yiv0430638920hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920ygrp-mkp #yiv0430638920ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920ygrp-mkp .yiv0430638920ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920ygrp-mkp .yiv0430638920ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920ygrp-mkp .yiv0430638920ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0430638920ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920ygrp-sponsor #yiv0430638920ygrp-lc #yiv0430638920hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920ygrp-sponsor #yiv0430638920ygrp-lc .yiv0430638920ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920activity span
.yiv0430638920underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0430638920
.yiv0430638920attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv0430638920 .yiv0430638920attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920 .yiv0430638920attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv0430638920 .yiv0430638920attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv0430638920 .yiv0430638920attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv0430638920 .yiv0430638920bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv0430638920
.yiv0430638920bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920 dd.yiv0430638920last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv0430638920 dd.yiv0430638920last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv0430638920
dd.yiv0430638920last p span.yiv0430638920yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv0430638920 div.yiv0430638920attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920 div.yiv0430638920attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv0430638920 div.yiv0430638920file-title a, #yiv0430638920
div.yiv0430638920file-title a:active, #yiv0430638920
div.yiv0430638920file-title a:hover, #yiv0430638920 div.yiv0430638920file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920 div.yiv0430638920photo-title a,
#yiv0430638920 div.yiv0430638920photo-title a:active, #yiv0430638920
div.yiv0430638920photo-title a:hover, #yiv0430638920
div.yiv0430638920photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv0430638920
div#yiv0430638920ygrp-mlmsg #yiv0430638920ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv0430638920yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv0430638920
.yiv0430638920green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv0430638920 .yiv0430638920MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv0430638920 o {font-size:0;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920photos div div {border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920photos div label
{color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv0430638920
#yiv0430638920reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv0430638920 .yiv0430638920replbq
{margin:4px;}#yiv0430638920 #yiv0430638920ygrp-actbar
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : ThanksR-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experiencefor the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don'tbe Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightenedin their guidance. Forinstance, “Ifone is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. Bynegative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches andmuddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God'screative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, thebody starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health andlifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excesssunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained bycosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out spammers, and make sure there's no porn or other content that would get FFL categorized as an adult group, where it would be much less visible on the 'net. For a time, I was also tasked with enforcing the moronic posting limit. WRT colloidal silver, I would only add that it should not be taken on a regular basis, and even at 20 PPM, no more than 6oz should be taken per day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : J Alexander Stanley is supposed to be the moderator, but he mostly is busy making colloidal silver and cooking meat at low temps for a loong time (wish I had some now). Personally I like his post on what he cooks better than I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Seems to me we're starting right out with abuse of Doug, before he's done anything at all. Nobody, of course, will fall off the radar if they're banned. They can always email Rick (or Alex, if he's still functioning in the moderator realm). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Just for the record, I should point out that Rick banned me from the group without sending me a single message or email explaining why. So, I appealed to him and he reinstated my posting privileges. Apparently an informant objected to my using their real name, although they had previously posted under their real name. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. The really sad part of this is that Barry has not apologized to me for over two decades for posting my real name on a.m.t. Go figure. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance? Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out spammers, and make sure there's no porn or other content that would get FFL categorized as an adult group, where it would be much less visible on the 'net. For a time, I was also tasked with enforcing the moronic posting limit. WRT colloidal silver, I would only add that it should not be taken on a regular basis, and even at 20 PPM, no more than
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out spammers, and make sure there's no porn or other content that would get FFL categorized as an adult group, where it would be much less visible on the 'net. For a time, I was also tasked with enforcing the moronic posting limit. WRT colloidal silver, I would only add that it should not be taken on a regular basis, and even at 20 PPM, no more than 6oz should be taken per day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : J Alexander Stanley is supposed to be the moderator, but he mostly is busy making colloidal silver and cooking meat at low temps for a loong time (wish I had some now). Personally I like his post on what he cooks better than I would any moderation stuff. And I appreciated him giving me the info on his silver maker. So thus far, I am quite pleased at the moderate role J Alexander plays as moderator. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Peep
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Let's just see how it turns out. We could always create Fairfield Life II if it does not. Here is the current description of Fairfield Life, in case any of us have forgotten: Group Description Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Management, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1971. There are about 2000 Transcendental Meditation practitioners here, as well as many others pursuing various spiritual paths. What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell We often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM Movement, which may not interest some, but that's why God created the delete key. Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, etc. The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions. ~ The I Ching Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. Whatever you think, it's more than that ~ Incredible String Band You can lurk without joining, but you have to join to post. Members can access Files, Photos, Links, and Database. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~ Buddha Take what you need and leave the rest. ~ The Band I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for the truth; and truth rewarded me. ~ Simone de Beauvoir ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out spammers, and make sure there's no porn or other content that would get FFL categorized as an adult group, where it would be much less visible on the 'net. For a time, I was also tasked with enforcing the moronic posting limit. WRT colloidal silver, I would only add that it should not be taken on a regular basis, and even at 20 PPM, no more than 6oz should be taken per day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : J Alexander Stanley is supposed to be the moderator, but he mostly is busy making colloidal silver and cooking meat at low temps for a loong time (wish I had some now). Personally I like his post on what he cooks better than I would any moderation stuff. And I appreciated him giving me the info on his silver maker. So thus far, I am quite pleased at the moderate role J Alexander plays as moderator. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Peep Show ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Moderation ain't working, Doug, or haven't you noticed? There basically is NO moderation on this forum. Rick has encouraged us all to ponder these deep questions, but when it attracts trolls, he bails. No problem now that I have adjusted, but let's please not act as if someone is EVER going to do anything per the Yahoo Guidelines here. It is imo a useless thing to bring up at this point. I thought you left? Left to start a group with moderation? Why not stay there if you can't cope with being here? Why the endless whining? Is it some sort of denial of service for the people who actually like it here? Are you on some sort of mission to save us from ourselves? You are the irritating troll, do you understand? You and your mates who also never contribute anything. Go away. Nothing is going to change here because we like chatting and having fun. Go away and stop spoiling it. You and your mates are tedious beyond words. Go away. You are the trolls. Go away. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : It is true the original post by Turqb was the meme of a slur in violation of the Yahoo-groups guidelines and should have been moderated simply then by the group owner. Moderation is simple to do, either ask someone to withdraw/delete such a post themselves or a moderator remove it and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : ThanksR-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experiencefor the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don'tbe Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightenedin their guidance. Forinstance, “Ifone is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. Bynegative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches andmuddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God'screative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, thebody starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health andlifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excesssunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained bycosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary. They are put in place to foster discussion, about anything. If you and Rick decide hands off, there is no unambiguous solution to trolling on this forum. That is why the majority of the forums, mine included, adhere to the guidelines set out by Yahoo Groups. Rick's and yours don't, and that is no occasion for congratulations. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Thanks. From the very start, FFL was intended as a free speech zone. When Rick asked me to be a moderator, the job description was to handle subscriptions, keep out spammers, and make sure there's no porn or other content that would get FFL categorized as an adult group, where it would be much less visible on the 'net. For a time, I was also tasked with enforcing the moronic posting limit. WRT colloidal silver, I would only add that it should not be taken on a regular basis, and even at 20 PPM, no more than 6oz should be taken per day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : J Alexander Stanley is supposed to be the moderator, but he mostly is busy making colloidal silver and cooking meat at low temps for a loong time (wish I had some now). Personally I like his post on what he cooks better than I would any moderation stuff. And I appreciated him giving me the info on his silver maker. So thus far, I am quite pleased at the moderate role J Alexander plays as moderator. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Peep Show ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Moderation ain't working, Doug, or haven't you noticed? There basically is NO moderation on this forum. Rick has encouraged us all to ponder
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Good and Evil Shaking Hands. The following is from the MUM website: Resilience and the Coexistence of Opposites Resilience is most powerful when opposites are harmonized in a system. Peters and Waterman expressed this idea in their seminal book In Search of Excellence (1982) as the concept of simultaneous loose/tightcoupling. It is also central in Maharishi’s teaching about the coexistence of opposites, which is a characteristic of Creative Intelligence, which grows as consciousness expands due to the practice of Transcendental Meditation (SCI Manual, 1972). What do I mean? In this blog post I will explain. This post is somewhat abstract, so I will try to make it accessible. Whenever we have a personal quality, say being very stable, if we do not also have its opposite there is a lack of resilience. Stability without adaptability creates a situation of stubbornness and inflexibility, thus resistance to change. On the other hand adaptability without stability yields frazzled, frenzied change without apparent direction. Individuals and companies can display this unintegrated weakness. Or they can be resilient and successful. Resilience means robustness. It implies both core stability and the openness to innovate. This is the simultaneous loose/ tight that is referred to in the book In Search of Excellence as the last of their eight principles and in many ways the summary point. A firm’s accounting department represents tight controls, and the creative advertising and RD departments are loose and innovative. But this quality is engendered in all employees in excellent companies. This co-existence is explained by Peters and Waterman as follows: It is in essence the co-existence of firm central direction and maximum individual autonomy−what we have called “having one’s cake and eating it too.” Organizations that live by the loose-tight principle are on the one hand rigidly controlled, yet at the same time allow (indeed, insist on) autonomy, entrepreneurship, and innovation, from the rank and file. (p. 318). The reason that opposites have to be present for resilience is found in ecological and social systems. Traditions and instinctive behavior represent stability, and innovation and adaptation, adaptability, are both essential for resilience. Maharishi has described other opposites, such as the absolute never changing and the relative always changing poles of our lives. Other ways of stating this are silence and dynamism, heart and intellect, mind and body. We know that we are connected to the universe. In truth our essence, the Self, is the basic constituent of the universe in the same way as the sap is the essential constituent of a plant or tree, and in truth sap is everywhere present in the plant or tree. When we are competent to connect our individual consciousness to the unbounded quality of inner wakefulness, the Self, we gain true resilience, true coexistence of opposites. This expansion of consciousness attunes us to the cosmic intelligence of the universe, of which we are. The result is inner peace and fulfillment. (There is something good in this, but we don't have to agree with it all, there might be a better explanation put forward.)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , turquoi...@yahoo.com mailto:turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. _ From: mailto:j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com%20[FairfieldLife] j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:reverse_arch...@yahoo.com reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:reverse_archery@... reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks for responding, Rick. While you're still here, can you please explain to us exactly HOW Doug will enforce the sentence I've highlighted below in red? What exactly is he allowed to do and not do to ensure adherence to Yahoo's guidelines? My experience is that it's better to ask these kinds of questions *before* possible abuse of authority happens, not afterwards. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:j_alexander_stanley@...%20[FairfieldLife]; FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... mailto:reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 9:58 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show Thanks for responding, Rick. While you're still here, can you please explain to us exactly HOW Doug will enforce the sentence I've highlighted below in red? What exactly is he allowed to do and not do to ensure adherence to Yahoo's guidelines? My experience is that it's better to ask these kinds of questions *before* possible abuse of authority happens, not afterwards. I actually don’t know. I don’t know if he does either. Let’s see what he does and evaluate it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. _ From: mailto:j_alexander_stanley@...%20[FairfieldLife] j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , reverse_archery@... mailto:reverse_archery@... wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
/A troll posting on the very first day with the new FFL moderator? 2. Be courteous. Everyone wants to be treated with respect, and showing respect to others makes the community better for all members. https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm/ Quoting Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com: Even if I say that Marshy was a liar, cheat, fraud and con artist and that he was a serial womanizer? Just figured I would test how deep or shallow the newly moderated waters are, you see. - FROM: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com TO: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com SENT: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:57 AM SUBJECT: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote : /SAD NEWS./ /MIGHT I PROPOSE, BEFORE DOUG STARTS BANNING PEOPLE, THAT YOU AND RICK INSIST ON A FEW GUIDELINES FOR *HIM* WHEN HE DOES THIS./ /I'M SUGGESTING THIS BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE HERE IS AWARE THAT DOUG IS...UH...NOT QUITE IN TOUCH WITH REALITY THESE DAYS, AND TENDS TO SEE THINGS THAT AREN'T REALLY THERE./ /SO WHAT I SUGGEST IS THAT IF HE IS INDEED GIVEN THE POWER TO BAN SOMEONE, HE CANNOT DO SO WITHOUT REPOSTING *THE EXACT POST* THAT DOUG FEELS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE YAHOO GUIDELINES, AND WITHOUT EXPLAINING TO THE GROUP *EXACTLY WHY* HE THINKS THIS POSTER NEEDS TO BE BANNED./ /OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. DOUG WILL JUST BAN THE PEOPLE HE DOESN'T LIKE, WITHOUT TELLING *ANYONE*, AND THEY'LL JUST FALL OFF THE RADAR BECAUSE THEY CAN'T POST ANY MORE, EITHER TO COMPLAIN OR TO DEFEND THEMSELVES./ /I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT A TYRANT HAS JUST BEEN HANDED THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM. I THINK WE ALSO ALL KNOW WHAT HE WILL DO WITH THEM. I'M JUST SUGGESTING A PROCEDURE THAT INSURES HE CAN'T DO IT IN SECRET./ - FROM: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com TO: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com SENT: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM SUBJECT: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_arch...@yahoo.com wrote : Cute. When do you get to be a full moderator for this site, Doug? Is this your first official attempt? It seems you are practicing with me, or something, given the plethora of more meaningful targets available. Regardless, I wish you all the best in your new role... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : 'Don't be Unkind'. The Yahoo-groups guidelines are really quite enlightened in their guidance. For instance, “If one is constantly negative, one is heading towards trouble. By negative thinking, feeling and acting one creates dark patches and muddy colors in the aura which, in turn, prevent the flow of God's creative energy from reaching him. Without the light of God, the body starts of manifest various imbalances and one's health and lifespan is compromised. Turning to vitamins, minerals and excess sunlight does not help because the body is primarily sustained by cosmic current.” -Charles Lutes, Will and Desire, 5/3/91 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : Alex, before you and Rick sprain your wrists patting yourselves on the back for creating a free speech zone, you must be aware that, contrary to the thousands of forums on Yahoo Groups, yours is not in compliance with the guidelines. Nothing to be proud of. The guidelines are not arbitrary
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
One *important* point to remember is that Yahoo Group guidelines are *suggestions* not rules. The only rules Yahoo cares about are the ones that will keep them out of a courtroom. A local news blog has a weekly politics thread where members are urged to be nice to each other but given the results and reverse psychology they might do better saying tear each other to shreds! ;-) On 06/08/2015 08:05 AM, 'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: *From:*FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] *Sent:* Monday, June 8, 2015 9:58 AM *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show */Thanks for responding, Rick. While you're still here, can you please explain to us exactly HOW Doug will enforce the sentence I've highlighted below in red? What exactly is he allowed to do and not do to ensure adherence to Yahoo's guidelines? My experience is that it's better to ask these kinds of questions *before* possible abuse of authority happens, not afterwards. /**//* I actually don’t know. I don’t know if he does either. Let’s see what he does and evaluate it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : *From:*FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] *Sent:* Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. *Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more.*He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : */Sad news. /* */Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. /* */I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. /* */So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. /* */Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. /* */I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. /* *From:*j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:j_alexander_stanley@...%20[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : *Thanks R-V, I appreciate the perspective of your enlightened high-minded empathy in experience for the well-being of FFL. * ---In FairfieldLife
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I don't think I need to explain anything to you. I think if you reread what I wrote, carefully this time--several times if necessary--you'll see why your question was based on a misunderstanding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : 'You are holding...' was a question. Note the question mark at the end of sentence. It was some sort of figurative language, but the sentence began with the word 'you'. Already giving commands? I am under no obligation to reread anything here. Note that rereading something does not necessarily result in the understanding someone else desires one to have. If that is what you desire, then the best method is to explain what you wanted them to understand in some other way, and keep doing that until they do understand. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Does the You are holding... refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. Click on the link below to see a sample of how Doug Hamilton has commonly used FFL over the years. This is from a few weeks ago. Posts such as this are interspersed with incessant whining about how FFL is inappropriately run. In the hiring business, a common phrase is Hire for attitude, train for skill. Well, I doubt if there will be any training for skill in this moderator position. Based on my observations of his approach to FFL, I don't see that Doug has either the attitude or the capacity to 'moderate' himself or FFL. However, the deed is done, and I guess only time will tell. Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi University of Mana... View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414168 Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 7:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show We sat over this together in church the other day. It will be fine. –JaiGuruYou It was a wedding. Ordinarily you wouldn’t find me in church. Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Sad news. Might I propose, before Doug starts banning people, that you and Rick insist on a few guidelines for *him* when he does this. I'm suggesting this because I think everyone here is aware that Doug is...uh...not quite in touch with reality these days, and tends to see things that aren't really there. So what I suggest is that if he is indeed given the power to ban someone, he cannot do so without reposting *the exact post* that Doug feels is in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines, and without explaining to the group *exactly why* he thinks this poster needs to be banned. Otherwise, you know what's going to happen. Doug will just ban the people he doesn't like, without telling *anyone*, and they'll just fall off the radar because they can't post any more, either to complain or to defend themselves. I think we all know that a tyrant has just been handed the keys to the kingdom. I think we also all know what he will do with them. I'm just suggesting a procedure that insures he can't do it in secret. From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:j_alexander_stanley@...%20[FairfieldLife]; FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show As is typically the case these days, I am completely out of the loop with respect to Rick's handling of FFL. Doug's posts this morning piqued my curiosity, and it turns out that Rick made Doug a moderator yesterday afternoon. I have no idea what Doug is supposed to do in terms of enforcement. As for me, my role will not change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
'You are holding...' was a question. Note the question mark at the end of sentence. It was some sort of figurative language, but the sentence began with the word 'you'. Already giving commands? I am under no obligation to reread anything here. Note that rereading something does not necessarily result in the understanding someone else desires one to have. If that is what you desire, then the best method is to explain what you wanted them to understand in some other way, and keep doing that until they do understand. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Does the You are holding... refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I do not see why it would be necessary to understand you because that never seems possible anyway. Nice to see you have dropped the 'I stand by what I said' approach. Relying on what one has said in the past has issues. For example, it is possible we are smarter now than in the past and need to revise our thinking. Or maybe, less smart. I do have an hypothesis about your recent posting: that you think Barry's posting will be controlled in some way now, though it remains to be seen just how that will work out, as you two in the past seemed to be the primary polar opposites on FFL. Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't think I need to explain anything to you. I think if you reread what I wrote, carefully this time--several times if necessary--you'll see why your question was based on a misunderstanding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : 'You are holding...' was a question. Note the question mark at the end of sentence. It was some sort of figurative language, but the sentence began with the word 'you'. Already giving commands? I am under no obligation to reread anything here. Note that rereading something does not necessarily result in the understanding someone else desires one to have. If that is what you desire, then the best method is to explain what you wanted them to understand in some other way, and keep doing that until they do understand. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Does the You are holding... refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : It would appear authfriend can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, authfriend has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : I think you need to figure out why you have issues with damned near everything I write. Not my problem, Xeno. I like to comment on things like everyone else. It is not necessarily an issue with me. People on FFL really are not discussing issues for the most part, they are presenting their viewpoints about certain things, but not with the intention of resolving an issue because it really does not make a difference in our lives here if a topic over which there is disagreement is somehow resolved, however unlikely that is. The issues typically are not resolved. I respond to you because I want to know what you think about what you said, about what I said. But you tend to say fuck off in other words much of the time if the conversation exceeds a certain length.
