|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 8, 2017 5:48:28 GMT -5
Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick. Well that is true, I'm not really expected to intervene here. However, my view of the purpose of the unmoderated section was so that two or more members could have a full and frank discussion without worrying about anyone stepping in if it got a bit personal. There's something to be said for losing your cool you know, lets you know where you've still got edges to round off. To use a cage fighting analogy, it was intended that consenting adults would enter the area together and make up their own rules. What it wasn't intended for, was for participants to walk out to the street and drag in some member of the public back to the cage who hadn't signed up for the event. So by coming in here and discussing someone who wasn't participating in the conversation (and is apparently unable to ignore any criticism levelled against them in any part of the board), well that seems a bit unfair to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 8, 2017 4:38:37 GMT -5
Okay, I actually misunderstood because Satch has written in one of his post that you have reported. I only reported one time, and Satch was the person I reported. This is the case, supported by the historical archives of reported posts which I l ovingly fastidiously reluctantly maintain. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 7, 2017 5:47:18 GMT -5
Is it possible that different users hide behind the same avatar-username here? If so, how comes? How does that work and why and what for would anybody want to do that? Well your username and your display name can be different. Gopal for example is actually an account called "ruler". I guess if a user deleted their account you could then pick up their username. Why would anyone do that? Well Gopal perhaps felt attached to his previous identity . The other reason would be if you were a sneaky game playing troll. Are here people how use more than one account at the time? If so, who? It has been done in the past. I'm not aware of anyone currently doing it. At least, not to any great effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 7, 2017 5:40:06 GMT -5
I'm in Hamburg. I'm save here, outside. Could it be that someone is using my ip? If so, how comes and why? I've been on ATS and James Swartz forum and Sam Harris forum. Maybe I got me something? Just asking, in case my ip isn't clean. Also, I had e-mail exchanges with Alfio and Sunshine a while back. Would that be something my ip adress could be spoiled by? If that is the case? Your ip address is a number and you can find it out by typing "What is my IP address" into Google or going to a site like whatismyipaddress.com/It's then either on the ban list or it isn't. It can't be spoiled or made dirty. There are discussions that could be had about ip addresses being reused, but that's really off topic for this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 7, 2017 5:22:57 GMT -5
So is it possible to ban the people whose IPs are changing dynamically? Is it also having any range? I don't have much idea in networking side. Only once you've identified them, but that would take out that whole VPN provider (in that particular location) for all time. Is it having any range? I'd probably only want to ban a single range at a time. eg 201.123.56.* Edit: Fixed quote block |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 7, 2017 4:42:13 GMT -5
Well if your IP address was 192.168.54.38 then another customer with your service provider might be 192.168.54.39. You can specify that whole range (1 - 255) by either saying 192.168.54.* (where star is a wildcard) or 192.168.54.0. Interesting but a vpn you can choose your ip area, South America, Russia,US, europe and so on, hard to ban the world. Yeah, might take a while. Quicker (per VPN provider) than dealing with reported posts however  |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 7, 2017 4:35:09 GMT -5
Ha, no, poetic license. I can block a sub-net range using a wildcard. Would you care to explain what that means, Peter. I have no idea but would like to know. Thanks in advance. Well if your IP address was 192.168.54.38 then another customer with your service provider might be 192.168.54.39. You can specify that whole range (1 - 255) by either saying 192.168.54.* (where star is a wildcard) or 192.168.54.0. Depending on how they set it up, the next number might also be relevant 192.168.0.0 which would take out 65,025 addresses. Here's more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubnetworkThat particular number range I'm showing there is reserved for internal networks. It's just an example. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 7, 2017 4:26:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 7, 2017 4:21:26 GMT -5
Tuart was Alfio and I said I'd turn a blind eye to him circumventing a ban as long as he didn't get back to baiting/annoying people, especially Gopal. Apparently he either forgot I said that, didn't take me seriously or wasn't able to control himself. Either way, he is now banned along with the IP address range of his home town.Woah, you can block a whole district now? Ha, no, poetic license. I can block a sub-net range using a wildcard. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 6, 2017 8:55:14 GMT -5
I can't remember ever reporting you to mods. Peter said you have reported because I said "nonsense". You yourself admitted that you have reported me once. It was lolly's post that you called nonsense, but the user who reported it was 'pjotrvandam1' who has subsequently deleted their account. I don't know if it was a sock puppet or what. I'll check into reporters more carefully before acting on their complaints in future. In any event, I agreed with the sentiment ie that saying 'your post is nonsense' isn't constructive criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 5, 2017 4:09:11 GMT -5
You are using the word 'view point' to 'appearance'. That's correct too. But the way I am using is bit different, when awareness looks at the perception, it has a view point, when it looks at another perception simultaneously, then it has another view point. What a shame E is married Gopal, he could have been the lover you were seeking when you first turned-up here. Gopal reported this post. Tuart was Alfio and I said I'd turn a blind eye to him circumventing a ban as long as he didn't get back to baiting/annoying people, especially Gopal. Apparently he either forgot I said that, didn't take me seriously or wasn't able to control himself. Either way, he is now banned along with the IP address range of his home town. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 4, 2017 6:05:28 GMT -5
What is it you're doing here Krsnaraja? The originals of these messages already exist nearby. You're just filling up the board with copies of itself. And for what purpose, to ridicule the board and its posters? To demonstrate what a waste of time this all is? Making a mess of the ground. His only purpose here is to fill up the forum as much as possible with Kishna dumps, trying to evangelize and sell his religion to others, make no mistake he is selling not offering. Yes he said he is trying to keep his threads visible by continually posting to them. Still, they have more views than the amount of responses would suggest they should, which is interesting but there's no way to tell if that's 1) positive interest 2) negative interest 3) people stumbling into them because the read 'recent' posts and they're always there. We've had a chat about them and K agree to limit the number of threads and not copy entire books in here, which I appreciated. He's very good at sticking to agreements you know This whole reexamination of religion vs cult, for me, is taking me to the opinion that all religions are selling, and that in fact there is a clear exchange of energies. However the buyer's contribution is very much 'in this life' and while there is much to be gained, the seller is also offering a promise that may or may not be delivered upon. I also wonder where the energetic contribution of the buyer stops. This is an old idea, but Terry Pratchett captured it well in the book Small Gods where he suggested that higher density entities draw power from the belief of lower lifeforms. I paraphrase of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 3, 2017 10:32:09 GMT -5
Well you know, if you can't laugh at religion/spirituality then you really are going to get stuck in a pickle. I don't think our founding charter says anything about awareness being a serious thing. But there's a difference between laughing with, and laughing at. My point is that funny or serious, they already exist in their place. There's no need to take them out of context. Lord knows this forum is filling up with nonsense at a high enough rate already. I am not taking them these conversations all the time. I am just laying an example. That if you go over all these replies from the thread If I am the world and how it will solve the problem/how one gets enlightened it`s not forthcoming. I have been reading these replies from Zendancer, Enigma, Laughter to Lolly did they gave me the answers to what I have been searching? These are subjects that deals with psychology/psychiatry. Are the topics being discussed deal with faith and proof of God? This forum is suppose to be spiritual. One we can not see nor describe but it`s there. The thread If I am the world I believe should be included in Guinness of World Record for the most number of replies/views that wont stop because it has not found the key to unlock the secret of eternal life. Well that's the thing about the proof of God is that it doesn't lend itself very readily to transmission in any medium, The Internet most spectacularly so. So the answer to the secret of eternal life you're telling us is to embrace Krishna, chanting etc? |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 3, 2017 10:14:40 GMT -5
What is it you're doing here Krsnaraja? The originals of these messages already exist nearby. You're just filling up the board with copies of itself. And for what purpose, to ridicule the board and its posters? To demonstrate what a waste of time this all is? You know, Pete, when you copy/paste these conversations, you will notice that they are funny to read. Which is quite interesting for a thread suppose to seriously discussion on topics about awareness, self-realization, etc. Just go over, please, the conversations of these reactors and you will discover that the replies they get from each other are jokes. Well you know, if you can't laugh at religion/spirituality then you really are going to get stuck in a pickle. I don't think our founding charter says anything about awareness being a serious thing. But there's a difference between laughing with, and laughing at. My point is that funny or serious, they already exist in their place. There's no need to take them out of context. Lord knows this forum is filling up with nonsense at a high enough rate already. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 3, 2017 9:29:48 GMT -5
What is it you're doing here Krsnaraja? The originals of these messages already exist nearby. You're just filling up the board with copies of itself.
And for what purpose, to ridicule the board and its posters? To demonstrate what a waste of time this all is?
|
|
