|
|
Post by silver on Jul 12, 2013 12:42:07 GMT -5
(Hadda go out - sorry about the delay.) I'll go back over the original thread and see if I misconstrued the intent. I don't remember Peter saying anything about more moderation. My understanding was there was a 'problem', that being: people felt pushed to look at things they didn't want to look at, or look from a non-dual perspective when they didn't want to. The split was to allow a section that was more confrontational and people could chose to enter it or chose not to. Once there, no complaining allowed. Whether there was an inference of more moderation in the moderated area, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it wasn't stated. But I'll check it out. No no need -- what I was referring to was the expectations of those who were calling for the section. I found Peter's expression of intent for it to be ambiguous, as you indicated with your reply of "to create an unmoderated section", but in reply what I brought up were the expectations of the ones who called for it. Nice spin. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 12:50:25 GMT -5
As you say above, there is bullying and mocking on both sides. So I don't know how you can decide that one side is the "source" of nastiness here. It's nasty to complain about someone's mocking as a source of negativity and then go on a name calling binge oneself while trying to outsource that someone into another forum section and even calling that someones forum appearance evil or sniping at that someone at every opportunity. Yes. The actual source of nastiness is clear. Yes. I only sometimes post 'masses of posts' when I feel like getting closer to the core issue. I don't push people, I just keep asking and don't follow their distractions. That would be your giraffe/spin. When I look at the result, then I must say that your words are meaningless. If you wouldn't have an issue then you wouldn't comment. The recoiling is not a emotional story? Not emotional would just be words on screen. Look what just happened here: Reefs: It got only worse. Quinn: You are painting. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: You are spinning. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: I don't like your spin. edit: there was a word missing. Reefs: It got worse because of the split. Quinn: Not because of the split. Reefs: Look at only the facts I see. Quinn: No, I want to look at the actual facts. Reefs: Look at my facts. Quinn: No thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 12:50:57 GMT -5
No no need -- what I was referring to was the expectations of those who were calling for the section. I found Peter's expression of intent for it to be ambiguous, as you indicated with your reply of "to create an unmoderated section", but in reply what I brought up were the expectations of the ones who called for it. Oooh - you were referring to others' expectations. Yikes. Well, you're a better man than I (hehe) - I hadn't even traveled down that path. Yes yes ... to re-iterate, my personal perspective is that the current state is fine and I'll actually try to make use of the split but that the split is a fact and a change. There's potential around and about that change ... in the final analysis, what will be will be.  Sorry for the riddlespeak ... the undoing of non-doing doing dontcha' know! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 12:51:25 GMT -5
No no need -- what I was referring to was the expectations of those who were calling for the section. I found Peter's expression of intent for it to be ambiguous, as you indicated with your reply of "to create an unmoderated section", but in reply what I brought up were the expectations of the ones who called for it. Nice spin. What?? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 12:53:07 GMT -5
No no need -- what I was referring to was the expectations of those who were calling for the section. I found Peter's expression of intent for it to be ambiguous, as you indicated with your reply of "to create an unmoderated section", but in reply what I brought up were the expectations of the ones who called for it. Nice spin. What's the spin, Silver? If I thought about it (which I didn't at the time), I would also have assumed that people who voted "Yes" wanted a more heavily moderated section. Do you think that's inaccurate? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 12:57:55 GMT -5
It's nasty to complain about someone's mocking as a source of negativity and then go on a name calling binge oneself while trying to outsource that someone into another forum section and even calling that someones forum appearance evil or sniping at that someone at every opportunity. Yes. The actual source of nastiness is clear. Yes. I only sometimes post 'masses of posts' when I feel like getting closer to the core issue. I don't push people, I just keep asking and don't follow their distractions. That would be your giraffe/spin. When I look at the result, then I must say that your words are meaningless. If you wouldn't have an issue then you wouldn't comment. The recoiling is not a emotional story? Not emotional would just be words on screen. Look what just happened here: Reefs: It got only worse. Quinn: You are painting. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: You are spinning. Reefs: Look at the facts. Quinn: I don't like your spin. edit: there was a word missing. Reefs: It got worse because of the split. Quinn: Not because of the split. Reefs: Look at only the facts I see. Quinn: No, I want to look at the actual facts. Reefs: Look at my facts. Quinn: No thanks. (art makes note to self.... Come all without, come all within- You'll not see nothing like the Mighty Quinn) |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 12, 2013 13:00:25 GMT -5
What's the spin, Silver? If I thought about it (which I didn't at the time), I would also have assumed that people who voted "Yes" wanted a more heavily moderated section. Do you think that's inaccurate? Hi Quinn. The bit I was referring to was the last part of Laughter's quote - "...of the ones who called for it." That is not at all how it played out. Nobody called for it. It's simply an experiment and some want to see it go horribly wrong, that's what I see it as being all about. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 13:18:36 GMT -5
What's the spin, Silver? If I thought about it (which I didn't at the time), I would also have assumed that people who voted "Yes" wanted a more heavily moderated section. Do you think that's inaccurate? Hi Quinn. The bit I was referring to was the last part of Laughter's quote - "...of the ones who called for it." That is not at all how it played out. Nobody called for it. It's simply an experiment and some want to see it go horribly wrong, that's what I see it as being all about. Nobody called for it? Then why was the split proposed? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 12, 2013 13:19:38 GMT -5
Hi Quinn. The bit I was referring to was the last part of Laughter's quote - "...of the ones who called for it." That is not at all how it played out. Nobody called for it. It's simply an experiment and some want to see it go horribly wrong, that's what I see it as being all about. Nobody called for it? Then why was the split proposed? To the best of my recollection, it was simply Top putting that suggestion out there. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 12, 2013 13:24:11 GMT -5
Hi Quinn. The bit I was referring to was the last part of Laughter's quote - "...of the ones who called for it." That is not at all how it played out. Nobody called for it. It's simply an experiment and some want to see it go horribly wrong, that's what I see it as being all about. Nobody called for it? Then why was the split proposed? *raises hand* you can lob all your complaints about initiating a split in my direction... I stirred the pot enough to make it happen. I'm not displeased with the results. We're having a lot more direct, honest discussion now with each other. Was it the only way to get there? No. But I am happy now that we are here, even if the two section headings don't make sense or are not applicable anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 13:31:13 GMT -5
Nobody called for it? Then why was the split proposed? *raises hand* you can lob all your complaints about initiating a split in my direction... I stirred the pot enough to make it happen. I'm not displeased with the results. We're having a lot more direct, honest discussion now with each other. Was it the only way to get there? No. But I am happy now that we are here, even if the two section headings don't make sense or are not applicable anymore. What can we expectationlessly expect in the context of a non-doing??  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 13:32:40 GMT -5
Hi Quinn. The bit I was referring to was the last part of Laughter's quote - "...of the ones who called for it." That is not at all how it played out. Nobody called for it. It's simply an experiment and some want to see it go horribly wrong, that's what I see it as being all about. Nobody called for it? Then why was the split proposed? At the time topo' indicated that he was speaking for those who were unable to articulate themselves. If you go back and check it out the content at the time supported that assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 13, 2013 0:30:23 GMT -5
And the irony of all that, is that you're moderating their conversation. She's trying to moderate me off the board too. . She doesn't like me because I perpetually defend E and R to her. No lies, please. You're just fishing for compliments. I'd give 'em, but you know you are in the doghouse right now. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 13, 2013 0:33:17 GMT -5
Nobody called for it? Then why was the split proposed? At the time topo' indicated that he was speaking for those who were unable to articulate themselves. If you go back and check it out the content at the time supported that assertion. Seems like you're uncharacteristically unrelaxed. I'd say send in the clowns, but clearly they're already here. And that means you, and that means me. *honk honk*  |
|
