|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2013 2:46:37 GMT -5
Look at this reply from Silver, Top. Did there anything change? Isn't that the same old mentality from a year ago? Look at the result of your efforts for effective communication and making everyone understand each other better. Your approach is not working. You are failing miserably. Ha ha, you haven't changed a bit, either - well, not for long - but I'm not the one who's the subject of many a thread/poll. Btw, saying things like "You are failing miserably" is very funny because it's so melo dramatic.  Complain to Top, he wanted you to change. I just wanted you to go, hehe.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 26, 2013 2:48:39 GMT -5
Ha ha, you haven't changed a bit, either - well, not for long - but I'm not the one who's the subject of many a thread/poll. Btw, saying things like "You are failing miserably" is very funny because it's so melo dramatic. Complain to Top, he wanted you to change. I just wanted you to go, hehe. Who's complaining?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 4:03:58 GMT -5
ok, but which is which??  Or maybe we should call it: sleeping area / non-sleeping area can't get no z's with them noisy neighbors! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 4:17:02 GMT -5
*sigh* If your idea of maturity and growing up is to use the ignore button because you can't handle experiencing someone else's output, then we definitely don't share the same understanding of what it means to grow up. Go ahead and put me back on ignore so you can go back to a drama free, mature, serene experience. Well, you want to put me and Enigma into quarantine because you can't handle the experience. Can you see your projection? Your approach of trying to understand everyone and everything is flawed right from the start. You will end in confusion and after reading ALL posts of ALL members ALL day EVERY day your own posts will be mindless drivel. Your approach is the police state approach. For the sake of protecting a handful of feeble ones you will censor the entire country and turn everyone into a potential terrorist. That's loco. Maturity means self-regulation, not big brother intervention. That you want to rely on outside structures only shows your lack of trust in things being able to work itself out. topo' I disclaim his mindless drivel comment but beyond that he makes a strong case ... seems to not matter at this point though. My proposal for splitting the forum into moderated versus unmoderated is an attempt at finding a reconciliation between the inherent conflict between the impersonal and the personal. The personal wants room to be personal, so my proposal is to give them what they want so they can settle down and any straying into the land of the impersonal is done knowingly and with consent, effectively robbing them of their grounds for complaining. My proposal is geared towards there being less drama. I'm actually doing something to address the drama and all you are doing is complaining about it and making more of it. This reconciliation you're speaking of is impossible and any attempt at it futile. Giving the personal this protection robs it to some degree of the opportunity for finding the space in the only place it is to be had -- what is, in appearance to the personal, within itself. They won't see the lack of grounds for the complaints, which will continue, along with the drama, just in different forms and guises and along different story lines. Drama is a fact of the human condition. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 4:25:10 GMT -5
Andrew do you call peeps azzholes, authentically, at SF? I'm wondering. That would make it a more interesting place for me to check out. I've looked over there before and it just didn't draw me in. haha no, its not that kind of party there. Its stricter there but there is still authentic expression. My point was that authenticity doesn't necessarily equate to mockery etc. It's the baby/bathwater deal Andy. It's tricky to just try to excise "mockery". |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 5:29:51 GMT -5
haha no, its not that kind of party there. Its stricter there but there is still authentic expression. My point was that authenticity doesn't necessarily equate to mockery etc. It's the baby/bathwater deal Andy. It's tricky to just try to excise "mockery". 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. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 5:37:29 GMT -5
It's the baby/bathwater deal Andy. It's tricky to just try to excise "mockery". 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. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 6:51:12 GMT -5
If all you cared to do was round up peeps to talk spiritual stuff, you shouldn't run them down like a tank while you're doing it. Look at this reply from Silver, Top. Did there anything change? Isn't that the same old mentality from a year ago? Look at the result of your efforts for effective communication and making everyone understand each other better. Your approach is not working. You are failing miserably. You mean your approach is not working. You've had more discussion interaction than I have had with Silver since talking her down in the BP thread. Most of my interaction with Silver since then has been explaining things she doesn't get. Here's a question for you Reefs, who have you helped become self aware and helped facilitate a realization through your mocking and caustic interaction? Names of forum members who you've "enlightened" for lack of a better word. You want to measure my d!ck, whip yours out and let's compare. But first we have to establish a criteria for progress, cause right now it looks like you are in the midst of your own melt down and are not mature enough to handle being around people who operate as feelers and so you would rather ban them or attack them until they run away. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 6:58:27 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. I see this as somewhat out of the norm for you. There is no aggression here right now, and that can be seen in my unwillingness to have put a vote against 'sick and evil people'. Its not like that. I think the forum is in a pretty poor situation right now and I think a change might help. If not, it can always revert back. I don't think I brought the issue of 'authenticity' into it initially, but my experience is that authenticity isn't necessarily a given, either with or without moderation, so I have no concern about authenticity. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 6:59:23 GMT -5
Well, you want to put me and Enigma into quarantine because you can't handle the experience. Can you see your projection? Your approach of trying to understand everyone and everything is flawed right from the start. You will end in confusion and after reading ALL posts of ALL members ALL day EVERY day your own posts will be mindless drivel. Your approach is the police state approach. For the sake of protecting a handful of feeble ones you will censor the entire country and turn everyone into a potential terrorist. That's loco. Maturity means self-regulation, not big brother intervention. That you want to rely on outside structures only shows your lack of trust in things being able to work itself out. topo' I disclaim his mindless drivel comment but beyond that he makes a strong case ... seems to not matter at this point though. My proposal for splitting the forum into moderated versus unmoderated is an attempt at finding a reconciliation between the inherent conflict between the impersonal and the personal. The personal wants room to be personal, so my proposal is to give them what they want so they can settle down and any straying into the land of the impersonal is done knowingly and with consent, effectively robbing them of their grounds for complaining. My proposal is geared towards there being less drama. I'm actually doing something to address the drama and all you are doing is complaining about it and making more of it. This reconciliation you're speaking of is impossible and any attempt at it futile. Giving the personal this protection robs it to some degree of the opportunity for finding the space in the only place it is to be had -- what is, in appearance to the personal, within itself. They won't see the lack of grounds for the complaints, which will continue, along with the drama, just in different forms and guises and along different story lines. Drama is a fact of the human condition. I agree, drama is the human condition, and yet Reefs wants to make me responsible for it. I know the reconciliation will never completely happen, the impersonal will always irritate the personal to some degree. Does that translate into saying the proposal for shifting the board structure is misguided or futile? Sounds to me like a prejudgment. What is wrong with shaking up the social dynamic? All I can see is a bunch of resistance to change. Which is also human nature. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 7:02:37 GMT -5
Look at this reply from Silver, Top. Did there anything change? Isn't that the same old mentality from a year ago? Look at the result of your efforts for effective communication and making everyone understand each other better. Your approach is not working. You are failing miserably. You mean your approach is not working. You've had more discussion interaction than I have had with Silver since talking her down in the BP thread. Most of my interaction with Silver since then has been explaining things she doesn't get. Here's a question for you Reefs, who have you helped become self aware and helped facilitate a realization through your mocking and caustic interaction? Names of forum members who you've "enlightened" for lack of a better word. You want to measure my d!ck, whip yours out and let's compare. But first we have to establish a criteria for progress, cause right now it looks like you are in the midst of your own melt down and are not mature enough to handle being around people who operate as feelers and so you would rather ban them or attack them until they run away. shirley you're not waving the silver flag here as one of your 'success stories', if so I recommend you order one of these....  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 7:07:50 GMT -5
Laughter,
Just want to point out that the forum format change I've proposed doesn't ban mockery, it just moves it over to the side. Reefs complains about a lack of focus on content. This proposal is an experiment to see if the drama and content are separable.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:11:01 GMT -5
topo' I disclaim his mindless drivel comment but beyond that he makes a strong case ... seems to not matter at this point though. This reconciliation you're speaking of is impossible and any attempt at it futile. Giving the personal this protection robs it to some degree of the opportunity for finding the space in the only place it is to be had -- what is, in appearance to the personal, within itself. They won't see the lack of grounds for the complaints, which will continue, along with the drama, just in different forms and guises and along different story lines. Drama is a fact of the human condition. I agree, drama is the human condition, and yet Reefs wants to make me responsible for it. I know the reconciliation will never completely happen, the impersonal will always irritate the personal to some degree. Does that translate into saying the proposal for shifting the board structure is misguided or futile? Sounds to me like a prejudgment. What is wrong with shaking up the social dynamic? All I can see is a bunch of resistance to change. Which is also human nature. Yes well Reefs wanting to make you responsible for it is the little bit of Mountain-Goat in all of us. What else would you expect from a "gas man"? The characterization of misguided isn't sourced from here. Please defocus the idea of the futility of the proposal as opposed to the futility of the result of the proposal. If the proposal succeeds it isn't futile. That the result will be futile is just a personal prediction, and if you want to characterize that as a prejudgment, that's ok. Lots of words fit the bill on that one for sure. There is nothing wrong with shaking up the social dynamic of course. There's another old aphorism that comes into play and to say that I'm not curious as to what would happen wouldn't be being honest. The characterization of resistance cuts both ways, but I'll take ownership of that as well. I explain my rational for putting on the candidates suit in my poll. I'm curious, why didn't you put this up to a vote? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 7:11:39 GMT -5
You mean your approach is not working. You've had more discussion interaction than I have had with Silver since talking her down in the BP thread. Most of my interaction with Silver since then has been explaining things she doesn't get. Here's a question for you Reefs, who have you helped become self aware and helped facilitate a realization through your mocking and caustic interaction? Names of forum members who you've "enlightened" for lack of a better word. You want to measure my d!ck, whip yours out and let's compare. But first we have to establish a criteria for progress, cause right now it looks like you are in the midst of your own melt down and are not mature enough to handle being around people who operate as feelers and so you would rather ban them or attack them until they run away. shirley you're not waving the silver flag here as one of your 'success stories', if so I recommend you order one of these.... No I'm not Farmer, but Reefs is framing her as one of my failings which is placing me in charge of her awakening and becoming self-aware. As if any one person can be responsible for what can only happen by the grace of god. Reefs wants to measure this way, not I. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:12:31 GMT -5
Laughter, Just want to point out that the forum format change I've proposed doesn't ban mockery, it just moves it over to the side. Reefs complains about a lack of focus on content. This proposal is an experiment to see if the drama and content are separable. Yes, I see that. My dogma is that trying to excise mockery from the moderated section is likely to excise more than just mockery. |
|
