Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 14:09:21 GMT -5
Just remember, it's heaven on earth. Hehe. "Escape from New York" vs. "Shangri-La" Cabbie: [Snake runs into Cabbie's taxi cab while being chased by the Crazies] Bad neighborhood, Snake! You don't want to be walking from the Bowery to 42nd Street at night. I've been driving a cab here for 30 years and I'm telling you: you don't walk around here at night! Yes, sir! Those Crazies'll kill you and strip you in ten seconds flat! Usually I'm not down around here myself, but I wanted to catch that show. That stuff is like gold around here, you know. [Cabbie casually lights a Molotov penistail and throws it at approaching Crazies, which explodes in front of them, stopping them... and Cabbie speeds away with Snake in his taxi] I vote for laughter being the Cabbie. edit: one more goodie from EFNY Computer Voice: Attention. You are now entering the Debarkation Area. No talking. No smoking. Follow the orange line to the Processing Area. The next scheduled departure to the prison is in two hours. You now have the option to terminate and be cremated on the premises. If you elect this option, notify the Duty Sergeant in your Processing Area.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 14:42:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's never been conflict at RH, and the reason is that folks like you are not there. There are a lot more drama queens, trolls and warriors like you on forums than there are grown ups, so it's likely the membership will never get very high there. That was expected from the start. Whatever you need to believe to 'get you through it'.. i see you spend more time here, though.. how does that work, Mr. Drama Queen? need the drama, or just evangelizing for converts? Be well.. Dude! This is where the conversation is happening. RH has relatively few posts. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 14:49:27 GMT -5
The criteria for 'bad behavior' is very subjective. I.E. are Tzu and Arisha being beligerant and hateful or are they telling it like it is directly for the good of the forum. Hencely, the criteria becomes mostly name calling, which is seen as unnecessary regardless of motive or the truth of the matter. If the new criteria is niceness, it will also be subjective, but with much less ambiguity. If the criteria is 'personal', it's relatively easy to determine as it will be pretty much Amity-ville. ***looking forward to logically analyzing ineffable spiritual concepts*** Yaknow, you think you're being matter-of-fact and clear here, but it's just more mocking. Why are you so afraid of being left out of the conversation(s)? That's what it looks like to me. Youre' an attention frog. heehee. How bout you take your drama to the children's section?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 14:49:55 GMT -5
Thing is, that they have been masters at 'working the rules' to their favour....they use the rules effectively as part of the bullying. I think the bullying may decline because they won't be able to do that anymore. We will see I guess. Steve is a classic example. His recent 'offense' was minor really compared to what happens here some of the time, yet he broke the rules and had to go. The criteria for 'bad behavior' is very subjective. I.E. are Tzu and Arisha being beligerant and hateful or are they telling it like it is directly for the good of the forum. Hencely, the criteria becomes mostly name calling, which is seen as unnecessary regardless of motive or the truth of the matter. If the new criteria is niceness, it will also be subjective, but with much less ambiguity. If the criteria is 'personal', it's relatively easy to determine as it will be pretty much Amity-ville. ***looking forward to logically analyzing ineffable spiritual concepts*** I see the unmoderated section as potentially putting these issues to bed. People can get on with belligerence, condescension, mockery, you will be even be free to comment on people's mental health. Personally, I see name calling as a relatively small thing by and large. I think too much time is currently spent on talking about laws and bi-laws and theoretically there should be very little of that in the unmoderated section. And then the new moderated section is there for those that want to debate a subject without getting personal.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 15:01:46 GMT -5
The criteria for 'bad behavior' is very subjective. I.E. are Tzu and Arisha being beligerant and hateful or are they telling it like it is directly for the good of the forum. Hencely, the criteria becomes mostly name calling, which is seen as unnecessary regardless of motive or the truth of the matter. If the new criteria is niceness, it will also be subjective, but with much less ambiguity. If the criteria is 'personal', it's relatively easy to determine as it will be pretty much Amity-ville. ***looking forward to logically analyzing ineffable spiritual concepts*** I see the unmoderated section as potentially putting these issues to bed. People can get on with belligerence, condescension, mockery, you will be even be free to comment on people's mental health. Personally, I see name calling as a relatively small thing by and large. I think too much time is currently spent on talking about laws and bi-laws and theoretically there should be very little of that in the unmoderated section. And then the new moderated section is there for those that want to debate a subject without getting personal. Yeah, that sounds like the plan.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 15:04:48 GMT -5
I see the unmoderated section as potentially putting these issues to bed. People can get on with belligerence, condescension, mockery, you will be even be free to comment on people's mental health. Personally, I see name calling as a relatively small thing by and large. I think too much time is currently spent on talking about laws and bi-laws and theoretically there should be very little of that in the unmoderated section. And then the new moderated section is there for those that want to debate a subject without getting personal. Yeah, that sounds like the plan. I think it has the potential to be a more honest environment. I might be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 15:29:30 GMT -5
"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" vs. "Romper Room"
LOL... I could go on...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 16:10:08 GMT -5
Yeah, that sounds like the plan. I think it has the potential to be a more honest environment. I might be proved wrong. Well, I wouldn't think so. The censoring of personal exploration will close down the most meaningful aspect of spiritual inquiry, (after all, it's not a conceptual exploration) while opening the door to egoic expression will likely result in more ugliness and venting, and even that need not be 'honest'in the sense of sincere or truthful.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 16:21:14 GMT -5
I think it has the potential to be a more honest environment. I might be proved wrong. Well, I wouldn't think so. The censoring of personal exploration will close down the most meaningful aspect of spiritual inquiry, (after all, it's not a conceptual exploration) while opening the door to egoic expression will likely result in more ugliness and venting, and even that need not be 'honest'in the sense of sincere or truthful. I would rather see and deal with egoic expression out in the open, than see and deal with it the way that it happens now. I have no issue with venting per se, and what I find quite ugly is the way that ego currently manipulates the rules for its own gain. Name calling....bah! I've been called everything under the sun in my life, its just...name calling. The censoring would only apply to one section of course.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 16:54:38 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't think so. The censoring of personal exploration will close down the most meaningful aspect of spiritual inquiry, (after all, it's not a conceptual exploration) while opening the door to egoic expression will likely result in more ugliness and venting, and even that need not be 'honest'in the sense of sincere or truthful. I would rather see and deal with egoic expression out in the open, than see and deal with it the way that it happens now. I have no issue with venting per se, and what I find quite ugly is the way that ego currently manipulates the rules for its own gain. Name calling....bah! I've been called everything under the sun in my life, its just...name calling. The censoring would only apply to one section of course. If you mean honesty in terms of moderation, then yes.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 26, 2013 17:01:36 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Whatever you need to believe to 'get you through it'.. i see you spend more time here, though.. how does that work, Mr. Drama Queen? need the drama, or just evangelizing for converts? Be well.. Dude! This is where the conversation is happening. RH has relatively few posts. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I comprehend it well.. you gather people that agree on beliefs (RH), and there's no 'drama', so.. run back over to ST and stir some up, it's what you thrive on.. you post history is baiting people into drama, and pretending you have some messianic spiritual wisdom to save them from the drama 'you' created.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Jun 26, 2013 17:17:57 GMT -5
I think it has the potential to be a more honest environment. I might be proved wrong. Well, I wouldn't think so. The censoring of personal exploration will close down the most meaningful aspect of spiritual inquiry, (after all, it's not a conceptual exploration) while opening the door to egoic expression will likely result in more ugliness and venting, and even that need not be 'honest'in the sense of sincere or truthful. I don't really get that involved much here but for me the new section should be all about flexibility, with the power in the hands of the thread starter rather than the moderator. Let the thread starter decide terms if they want to or whether or not all or only some forum members are allowed to participate. It has great potential that way rather than being limiting.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 17:52:04 GMT -5
I think it has the potential to be a more honest environment. I might be proved wrong. Well, I wouldn't think so. The censoring of personal exploration will close down the most meaningful aspect of spiritual inquiry, (after all, it's not a conceptual exploration) while opening the door to egoic expression will likely result in more ugliness and venting, and even that need not be 'honest'in the sense of sincere or truthful. I think the honesty that Andrew is talking about is not having the threat of being banned cause some peeps to filter themselves. You might be concerned about more egoic responses, but the equal and opposite concern is that people filtering themselves might be holding them back from seeing themselves clearly. I don't think there is going to be a problem attracting the personal peeps into the unmoderated section, they can't help themselves. Your concern about their loss of forced exploration is moot given the ignore feature.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 26, 2013 18:36:15 GMT -5
Yaknow, you think you're being matter-of-fact and clear here, but it's just more mocking. Why are you so afraid of being left out of the conversation(s)? That's what it looks like to me. Youre' an attention frog. heehee. How bout you take your drama to the children's section? Sometimes, a clever retort is clever enough to hide behind. Good bluff, btw. More put-downs, with a cherry on top. Nice work.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2013 19:38:37 GMT -5
Hmmm. Like I said, I've been on forums with an absence of mockery and there is still authentic expression. Its not even the mockery I particularly have an issue with. I am happy to join the unmoderated section and mock outlandishly if I feel its appropriate. Its the nature of the current rules that I have an issue with because I feel it favours a particular group of people. And what I said was that if the intent is only to ban mockery, that it's hard to do without removing content other than mockery. Here you revise and extend your remarks: My point was that authenticity doesn't necessarily equate to mockery etc. So you evidently do have a point beyond that, stated thusly: That's what this is all about, right there, is the direction of aggression towards that "particular group of people". That's cool. I got no beef with that. Nice to put some light on it though. Yes, Andy obviously DOES have some beef with some folks here or he wouldn't suddenly be into delineating and divvying up.
|
|