|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 14:53:13 GMT -5
I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. That is all. Thank you As I explained several times in the thread, the reason for asking for limited participation was to eliminate the possibility for what figgles has termed "side-dialog" between myself and anyone that might agree with me. This is one of the specific modes of communication that they had criticized, so in order to embody the change that they were calling for, I didn't even want the potential of it in the conversation. What is interesting to notice is that this side dialog is exactly what figgles and Andy do in the mega-threads.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 14:58:34 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. I deny being on a reeducation campaign and the way I see it the conversation about the dynamics of the conversation is one that can only end with total suppression -- which is what I've seen on two of the other three forums that I'm familiar with, and has been suggested by others is the usual way that such conversation is dealt with. As you've pointed out on occasion, it's not possible to live a concept, but I do have a bias toward free speech.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:03:47 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. As my name is mentioned here. When I arrived I entered into general discussion with no reference to forum dynamics. It was the admin here that moved my post to this board under a title about accusation of sock puppetry. Since then I have created posts in the general section, for general discussion, which have again been moved by admin to the un-moderated section and had subjective accusations and pictures of trolls attached to them. I originally came here because I saw an interesting discussion. I have shared contemplations that I find interesting. To that end, I am creating a new site that I hope will bring interesting discussion. It is the admins here that brought my words over to the unmoderated forum and brought me into the crap that was here long before I came, by accusing me of being someone else. As I recall, your complaint of the content being moved, other than one specific instance in which a thread was re-designated NAT mid-stream, was on one or more occasions where it was left in place and simply quoted outside of GD on the UM side. I can't recall with certainty at the moment whether or not any of your content was actually ever moved, and without looking back, my recollection is that none of your stuff was ever moved. If you've got a specific example that contradicts that recollection then please link to it, but if not, then you're basing your statement on something that never happened. As far as the admins accusing you of being someone else is concerned, you're going back on your previous statements to the effect that you've let that conversation go. The fact is that no admin ever out-and-out accused you of that. The best you'll be able to find is one oblique reference to kabuki theater on my part.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:10:45 GMT -5
You respectfully disagree and then mock? Or was that just sarcasm? I guess then it's safe to assume that what you've said here ... ... was just ... bunk? That wasn't mocking. It was framing what you do in the same way that you framed others in your post. yeah it was!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:16:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. I respectfully disagree. Heh heh. The moderation style here does allow for food fights and style discussions, but it also allows for Rainbow Rules of Non-Duality and your own (and others') interest in re-educating non-duality 'offenders'. I like the diversity. Lest ye be threatened with banishment, know that such wording might be interpreted as a punishable offense.. 're-education' is also associated with 'brain-washing', and you've seen the warnings issued for describing that activity.. just a friendly heads-up.. Be well.. The distinctions are: 1) that she was obviously speaking sarcastically. 2) that it wasn't said in the context of an ongoing crusade 3) that "re-education" wasn't coupled with allegations of psychological manipulation and other abusive conduct, ie: she didn't call Reefs a brainwasher in so many words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 15:25:29 GMT -5
I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. That is all. Thank you As I explained several times in the thread, the reason for asking for limited participation was to eliminate the possibility for what figgles has termed "side-dialog" between myself and anyone that might agree with me. This is one of the specific modes of communication that they had criticized, so in order to embody the change that they were calling for, I didn't even want the potential of it in the conversation. What is interesting to notice is that this side dialog is exactly what figgles and Andy do in the mega-threads. I have little issue with 'side dialogue' per se, it's when it's loaded with mocking, poking and jeering at the one being discussed that I take issue. I really feel this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't need for anything here to actually change, but that doesn't mean I won't from time to time, mention mocking and disrespectful dialogue when/as i see it. On a forum where clarity is supposedly highly valued, having a look into the impetus that has me wanting to mock or make fun of the ideas of another, would, I'd think, itself be regarded as something of value. That's my main reason for mentioning it when I do.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 15:27:25 GMT -5
I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. What is interesting to notice is that this side dialog is exactly what figgles and Andy do in the mega-threads. There are examples to be found of of myself and Fig is side-dialogue of course, but the number of side dialogues that we have had, compared to the number that you, Reefs and Enigma have been involved in, is ridiculously few. And even when we have had them, the exchange is normally limited to one message. Its not often that I engage in side-dialogue with anyone, its not something I lean towards and that's because I have experienced what its like to be talked about, and its a bit of a pain. So I will tend to towards hitting the 'like' button rather than do the side dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 15:29:20 GMT -5
As I explained several times in the thread, the reason for asking for limited participation was to eliminate the possibility for what figgles has termed "side-dialog" between myself and anyone that might agree with me. This is one of the specific modes of communication that they had criticized, so in order to embody the change that they were calling for, I didn't even want the potential of it in the conversation. What is interesting to notice is that this side dialog is exactly what figgles and Andy do in the mega-threads. I have little issue with 'side dialogue' per se, it's when it's loaded with mocking, poking and jeering at the one being discussed that I take issue. I really feel this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't need for anything here to actually change, but that doesn't mean I won't from time to time, mention mocking and disrespectful dialogue when/as i see it. On a forum where clarity is supposedly highly valued, having a look into the impetus that has me wanting to mock or make fun of the ideas of another, would, I'd think, itself be regarded as something of value. That's my main reason for mentioning it when I do.
::side dialogue warning:: Yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:29:49 GMT -5
As I explained several times in the thread, the reason for asking for limited participation was to eliminate the possibility for what figgles has termed "side-dialog" between myself and anyone that might agree with me. This is one of the specific modes of communication that they had criticized, so in order to embody the change that they were calling for, I didn't even want the potential of it in the conversation. What is interesting to notice is that this side dialog is exactly what figgles and Andy do in the mega-threads. I have little issue with 'side dialogue' per se, it's when it's loaded with mocking, poking and jeering at the one being discussed that I take issue. I really feel this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't need for anything here to actually change, but that doesn't mean I won't from time to time, mention mocking and disrespectful dialogue when/as i see it. On a forum where clarity is supposedly highly valued, having a look into the impetus that has me wanting to mock or make fun of the ideas of another, would, I'd think, itself be regarded as something of value. That's my main reason for mentioning it when I do. When one is unable to recognize their own inherent self-contradiction, even as they go on forcefully re-expressing it for pages at a time, it invites satire.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:31:33 GMT -5
I have little issue with 'side dialogue' per se, it's when it's loaded with mocking, poking and jeering at the one being discussed that I take issue. I really feel this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't need for anything here to actually change, but that doesn't mean I won't from time to time, mention mocking and disrespectful dialogue when/as i see it. On a forum where clarity is supposedly highly valued, having a look into the impetus that has me wanting to mock or make fun of the ideas of another, would, I'd think, itself be regarded as something of value. That's my main reason for mentioning it when I do.
::side dialogue warning'' Yes. Now that you're conscious of it, will you continue to criticize the practice when others make you the subject of it? To be clear, I have no issues with you and figgles having a side dialog about what I've written, even when it gets unflattering. If that's what you want to write, that's what you want to write.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 15:32:33 GMT -5
That wasn't mocking. It was framing what you do in the same way that you framed others in your post. yeah it was! No way! ......Surely not in the same sense of the mocking and disrespect that's at the crux of this whole issue? If so, The very fact that you would place Quinn's words there in the same category as the 'mocking' that has been pointed out here as being unnecessary and inappropriate, says much. There is a point, and the line is really not so fine at all, where speaking in slight jest, with light sarcasm or joking, crosses the line into outright mockery. I find it interesting that it seems to be the worst perpetrators of the outright mockery here that seem to have the greatest difficult in deciphering where that line crosses over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 15:35:47 GMT -5
I have little issue with 'side dialogue' per se, it's when it's loaded with mocking, poking and jeering at the one being discussed that I take issue. I really feel this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't need for anything here to actually change, but that doesn't mean I won't from time to time, mention mocking and disrespectful dialogue when/as i see it. On a forum where clarity is supposedly highly valued, having a look into the impetus that has me wanting to mock or make fun of the ideas of another, would, I'd think, itself be regarded as something of value. That's my main reason for mentioning it when I do. When one is unable to recognize their own inherent self-contradiction, even as they go on forcefully re-expressing it for pages at a time, it invites satire. YOu saw 'mocking, poking or jeering' in my post?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:37:58 GMT -5
There are examples to be found of of myself and Fig is side-dialogue of course, but the number of side dialogues that we have had, compared to the number that you, Reefs and Enigma have been involved in, is ridiculously few. And even when we have had them, the exchange is normally limited to one message. Its not often that I engage in side-dialogue with anyone, its not something I lean towards and that's because I have experienced what its like to be talked about, and its a bit of a pain. So I will tend to towards hitting the 'like' button rather than do the side dialogue. This text is you creating a positive image of yourself and figgles and a negative image of others, and at that, it's not completely accurate. Here, I'll counter this image with a different one: Your image might seem accurate to someone who doesn't take the time to read every post in every megathread (and especially if they judge the content based on emotion and feeling), and there are a number of reasons for that. One of the ones that I highlighted recently is your's and figgles propensity to align yourself with words and phrases that evoke positive feelings, like "love" and "joy" and "releasing attachment" and then express a complex conceptual structure around them that is in opposition to the ideas expressed by others, whom you are usually busy characterizing negatively at the same time. When that conceptual structure is challenged, the challengers have no choice but to literally assume the role of kill-joys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 15:39:10 GMT -5
::side dialogue warning'' Yes. Now that you're conscious of it, will you continue to criticize the practice when others make you the subject of it? To be clear, I have no issues with you and figgles having a side dialog about what I've written, even when it gets unflattering. If that's what you want to write, that's what you want to write. When I used the terms 'side-dialogue' that's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the explicit identification of someone who is not part of the dialogue, and that person is then referred to in a mocking, jeering manner, perhaps even with a term that's been coined by one and jointly agreed upon to specifically refer to the ideas the subject of the mocking has put forth (Andrewism, figandrewism 101, etc. )
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 15:40:45 GMT -5
::side dialogue warning'' Yes. Now that you're conscious of it, will you continue to criticize the practice when others make you the subject of it? To be clear, I have no issues with you and figgles having a side dialog about what I've written, even when it gets unflattering. If that's what you want to write, that's what you want to write. I don't challenge the practice much these days, there's no point, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it can be questionable behaviour, particularly if the content of the side-dialogue is mockery/belittlement. Like Fig though, what I am really questioning is a spirituality that advertises clarity on one hand, yet doesn't seem to want to look at the impulse behind certain behaviours/practices.
|
|