Moderation in all things

[Kristen]

Hi Robert

Ah... I'm going to argue with you on this one.

While Greg was not fair IMO, I also do not think it is fair to say that your response did not include biting public ridicule.  

It is wrong, in my opinion, to be a bully; and, it is also wrong (once again, IMO) to provide bullies space to hurt others, or to expect that one cannot be allowed to effectively defend oneself... however, I also think that it is not honest to call giving someone a strong dose of their own medicine (done quite effectively I might add) a polite philosophical and/or intellectual exersize, no matter how big the words or how well they happen to fall together.

Kristen

[Robert Bruce]

G'day!

I agree in part with some of your points, but, please reread my retort carefully.  You will see that I attacked Greg's logic, his argument and his underlying paradigm.  I did not attack him as a person.  

Keep in mind that Greg attacked not only my work, but insulted my integrity as a person, which you agree is unfair.  I worked hard to try to overlook these snipes and to answer philosophically.  My only other choice would have been to just ignore his post, which maybe I should have done.  But I chose to make an exception in this case, mainly because of the turnaround he made after his original two posts.

Strong critique can be argued effectively and politely, without getting personal and starting a flame war. But it cannot always be argued quietly and nicely.

Take care, Robert.

[Kristen]

Hi Robert

I did read Greg's post and your reply very carefully...  
I'm a pedant, how could I not?

My objection is not about whether your response was justified, it is to your having used it as an example of what is acceptable when in fact other's posts have been erased which can arguably be considered quite similar to yours in terms of the context in which the response was written, and as to whether or not that response addresses/attacks a person as opposed to a behavior (such a fine line that).  

My point is that you did write things with a level of personal intensity that others have been censored for and which qualify in spirit according to your own rules as personal attack.  Specifically here the poor boy's (assumed) religious background and/or practice and/or understanding and his intellect really are fair game to me it seems, not his logic or his paradigm.  

Specifically you wrote:

".... But you fail miserably in your following discourse to justify their use, or even the point you are trying to make with them. Your use of the term 'illegitimate' in your previous post clearly came from narrow-minded bible-oriented thinking."

"Again, all the above comes from a narrow christian viewpoint that makes little sense to anyone outside your own faith"

"It is my opinion that you propose a circular, narrow minded, unfruitful, and badly thought out spiritual and philosophical hypothesis. You are using closed-minded, baseless absolutes"

"Your above argument is baseless, badly thought out and illogical."

Again, the "to be" verbs, i.e. the "I am" verbs, and personal pronouns all which indicate PERSON are in full force - "You are" (doing) thus and so.  The line between person and behavior is so thin as to be negligable.  Also, there are no guarentees as to whether one sort of response in comparison to another will or will not start a flame war.

I guess what I really want to know, is if someone comes along and insults me deeply - which has occured by the way - can I defend myself with the expectation that I can follow your example?  Or, will I be censured... as it stands now, I'm not clear on whether the rules will be arbitrarily applied or not.

With all due respect,

Kristen

[Adrian]

Greetings Kristen

I am not answering for Robert here, and would never presume to do so, but he did make his position perfectly clear in his opening post on this subject, and which I repeat here once more for your convenience:

"Moderation in these forums will be tolerant but fairly strict. Flames and any kind of abuse or offense between members will 'not' be tolerated."

"The rules of philosophical debate, or at the very least, good manners, are the way to avoid moderation problems".

To me, that position is totally unamibuous and sensible, and, believe me, when you have seen, and otherwise been involved in as many forums as I have on the Internet, is totally reasonable and justified.

We have an opportunity here, with a new forum, to set out the ground rules as to conduct and acceptibility, and as we mean to continue. If we allow any sort of anti-social behaviour of the sort that is widespread on the Internet these days, we will be setting a precedent which will be to the detriment of this forum as a platform for intellectual discussion on extremely important issues.

There is no problem with disagreement per se, or in principle, but rather how that disagreement is expressed in a public forum. In any presentation of opinion, if the opinion is substantive, the very least one would expect is a reasoning as to the position that is being stated. Simply saying something or someone is wrong for the sake of it, without so much as saying why it is wrong, does not make for any sort of sustainable, meaningful discussion. Even that is not the main issue though, which is rather that of ones conduct and demeanour in stating any position, which should at the very least be polite, and factual, and from a position of conviction. Name calling, flaming, or any other infamatory or antagonistic behaviour cannot be tolerated - and that is out of respect for every participant here.

Of course, freedom of choice always exists - respect the rules of the Forum as determined by Robert who's forum it is, or do not participate at all, it is as simple and straightforward as that.

Regards,

Adrian.

[Kristen]

Dear Adrian,

You may notice that I have respected the rules of the forum, and that I have not said that I don't intend to do so. I'm not quite sure what it is that you're responding to exactly...  since nothing I've said is in any way contrary to anything you've mentioned.  As a matter of fact, I totally agree with you.

Sincerely,

Kristen

[Adrian]

Greetings Kristen:

Well I certainly did not imply that you had not respected the rules of the forum, or implied that did would not do so in the future.

The point I was/am making in absolute terms, and speaking only for myself, is that at the final analysis, this will be a high quality forum, and the intention is for it to commence that way from the outset. As in most things, it is all a matter of commonsense, and thinking before responding to something, rather than simply reacting.

Let me quote something you said here as an example:

"Also, there are no guarentees as to whether one sort of response in comparison to another will or will not start a flame war."

The point I am making is, that the way I interpret Robert's comments, and I totally agree with, such "flame wars" will not be tolerated.

Regards,

Adrian.

[Rob]

Kristen: OK I am not trying to take a side, as I have done that waaay to much already (). However, looking at it from the kabalistic viewpoint (which is always useful, I do not know whether you are familiar), being overly nice all the time, which many people consider to be "the way", is seen as unbalanced, acting through the pillar of mercy. To be completely balanced, and live to the highest of principles, requires going through the middle pillar, which balances the side of severity (-)  with mercy (positive, for some reason the forum doesn't want to display the plus symbol??). If you are always overly nice to someone, they could easily come to the opinion that that is how it will always be, and so they can do whatever they like. It is only because is it so easy to see the destructive side severity, that this is considered "wrong" (perpetuated by unbalanced Christian viewpoints). The best way to act in severity is limited by intelligence, with the ultimate aim of tearing down the old so as to allow the building of the new (as Dion Fortune would say, something like that). This must act within the bounds of what is rightous - Geburah, which is the sphere it seem that Romero is acting in. It is my considered opinion that this sphere is badly misunderstood by most (look at the trouble Romero got into!) - and I am not saying this how you are, or that this is anybodies fault, except ultimately the churches. I wonder how this came to be, perhaps to discourage people from rebelling against them during their times of control? But I digress....

-----

Life can be a game, but only if you choose to play it.

[Kristen]

Hi Inguma

I like your post - the Kabbalah is one of my favorite subjects.

Geburah's energy can be misused - its klippoth is about unrestrained strength... unrestrained strength arises out of a lack of discernment/discretion/discipline as to when and where and how to use it and can lead to (and/or indicate) cruelty.  Another way to look at the subject could be to say that being sloppy with strength pollutes and diminishes its purpose.  (I would even say that cruelty diminishes strength in much the same way as prostitution diminishes sexuality).  There is a fitting time and a place and a circumstance... all the time doesn't fit those criteria.

So... I don't believe being nice is always the answer, just as I believe that being eviscerating is not always the answer.  I also believe in not perpetrating double standards.

(And by the way... what is it about much of what I've ever written over the past year or so that would lead anyone to believe that I'm too nice?  Including this string of posts)?

So having said that, I'd like to see Terri's posts about the dynamics of Guru/cult leadership back up on the board... there were some posts of mine that met the approved criteria if Robert's post is a worthy example, but which were erased as well... I don't remember what they were and they're probably gone anyway, so at this point there is no point.

Anyway... this string is getting long and outliving its purpose... I'm off to tilt at other windmills...

Call me Don Quixote

[RandomName]

Howdy people! As seen, I am new around here, but I do beleive everyone can voice an opinion. I beleive that the rules with debate on this message board seem quite fair. Although, the system for dealing with a dispute has not been set, and some regulations on certain topics should be set as well. Robert and Greg had their quarrel a while back. When he brought up Greg coming from a narrow minded backround, based on religon, I think that should be ok. Its a simple way of arguing over a beleif about a certain religon. As long as someone isn't going to be down right evil about it. I can understand Roberts post, and Im not just "sticking up" for him as some would probably say. IMO, say what you like, but don't say things that DIRECTLY insult another board member. Roberts religous oriented message of retort was based on his own beleifs. I don't recall the retort being abusive, as "Christians just suck man!" as some would say, just to be simple minded and rude. As long as board members are mature people, why not regulate when needed, based on a set of rules?

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Folks!

This is a good thread and deserves a little more attention, even though it may seem boring to some.

First, Kristen, feel free to critique or answer critique as strongly as you feel the need. As long as this is done intelligently, with no personal abuse or slander, as has been mentioned above, this is totally fine by me and all moderators.

The difference between passionate intellectual critique / debate and a flame war is that a flame war quickly flows into the gutter and becomes pointlessly abusive and slanderous.

I also agree that one should not always feel they hav to pretend to be nice, while engaging in debate and etc.  You will also find that many people like to call a spade a spade, and thus find this kind of false sweetness extremely irritating.  So the 'nice' device can also throw fuel on the fire at times.


To clear the record...

Over the past year I have had little time to moderate the old forum, due to many life problems consuming my time and energies. In this time, I relied on the few old forum moderators.  It is quite possible that some posts were deleted that should not have been deleted, and for this I appologise.  I han no control over this at the time.

I have no idea who deleted Terri's thread. It was not I, as I agreed with some of her points, and the ones I did not agree with were her opinion, which she is entitled to.  If I cared enough about these, I would have entered the debate myself.

The only threads I deleted on the forum, after many requests to do so, were the two Romero Bashing threads, each of which contained dozens of similar posts, with many containing pointless personal abuse and slander. However, I was too late in deleting these, because several highly respected forum members removed themselves from the forum for good because of this, including Romero. But this was probably a good thing in the end, as certain types of people don't mix.

The new forums, however, will be carefully watched by many more moderators, so the chances of unfair deletion is much less, while the chances of speedy fair deletion and etc is much higher.

Please note that so far no serious posts have been deleted on this forum, apart from those deleted for tidiness, a few silly ones, some doubled up posts, and those that had served their purposes.

Take care, Robert.

ps, bloody moderators are all the same, selfless, proactive, public minded troublemakers, all of them:)

[Kristen]

Hi Robert and All,

Well... good enough.  Although, my hope is that Romero decides to return some day.  Many can benefit from the good things he has to share.

big grin for >ps, bloody moderators are all the same, selfless, proactive, public minded troublemakers, all of them:)

Sincerely,

Kristen

[Sphere]

Hello,
I haven't read these "Greg Posts" mainly because I don't know where they are, but in Kristen's second post, I think she makes some very good points.  The quotes from Mr. Bruce that are used in this post come across offensive.  For example:

"clearly came from narrow-minded bible-oriented thinking."
"Again, all the above comes from a narrow christian viewpoint that makes little sense to anyone outside your own faith"

Whatever the comments were from this Greg, this language doubles as an insult to anyone with Biblical beliefs.  I have noticed that these type of comments are rapant on this forum.  Yes, I understand the frustration with certain people maintaining a beleif system that is based on Biblical writings or religious systems, but it is highly unfair to stereotype everyone who connects themselves with those writings or beliefs.  I have seen polite posts from people who connect themselves with the Christian faith get bashed just because they connect themselves with that faith.  "Narrow-minded bible-oriented thinking" isn't a statement about someone in particular, the language seems to suggest that "Bible-oriented thinking" is something negative.  "Again, all the above comes from a narrow christian viewpoint that makes little sense to anyone outside your own faith." This statement may not have been intended to sound like it does, but I think anyone reading it would derive a negative view of the faith mentioned.  I don't know if Mr. Bruce intended these comments to come across this way and I'm not here to pick away every word and put it under a microscope, but I've noticed this type of thing elsewhere on the forums.  I'm sure I can find plenty of people who distort Hindu, Muslim, Druid, Magic ect. writings, but it's not fair for me to stereotype or degrade these writings or those who cherish them.  I bought and read "Astral Dynamics" and very much enjoyed it.  Mr. Bruce appears to be much more respectful in this book, that's why I am surprised to see statements such as these.
Thanks.
Sphere

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Sphere!

Good points...so I must explain.....

First, I must appologize for deleting the 'Greg' post.  I thought it had served its purpose, so deleted it as quite frankly I regretted writing it. Its not that I did or said anything wrong, but that I lowered myself to reply to Greg's scathingly unfair critique.

The use of the term 'narrow minded bible oriented thinking' is being taken out of context, which is quite understandable as the text it was based upon was deleted.  I think the comment this was based upon was where Greg 'demanded' that any banishment or exorcism of evil spirits, including core image work, and all homemade methods of self help to accomplish same, were 'illegal'.  He said that only Jesus had the authority to do this, and/or only true believers who had the authority to use Jesus' name.

As you can see, this 'is' very narrow minded thinking. And, because he was using lots of bible quotes and etc to back up his claims, I dubbed him to be using 'narrow minded biblical thinking'.  This was used, of course, as opposed to 'open minded biblical thinking'.

I was, btw, raised as a christian, and have many 'open minded' christian friends.

This word usage was never intended to insult christians in any way whatsoever. And if you read the original 'Greg' posting and my reply, this would have been clear.  If he had been a buddhist, I would have said 'narrow minded buddhist thinking' or similar.  Mindless dogma is mindless dogma, no matter what the faith.

Anyway, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest my underwear if anything I have said along these lines is construed as offensive.  No offense was intended.


Take care, Robert.

[Sphere]

Hello,
First I would like to say thanks to Mr. Bruce for clearing the air.  He sent me a section of the "Greg" posts, which I read (unfortunately).  I can say that I can see why he deleted it and I wouldn't have even wasted my time reading it if it had been on the forum.  If there is any offence, it is that he wasted so much time and energy with this Greg person's posts.  Thank you for the attention and please, allow me to gracefully leave this discussion.
Thanks.
Sphere

[Frank]

Lauràelle, The Ceremony & The Sword

You entered the Training Zone.

Rgds,
Frank

[bitsmart]

Lauràelle, The Ceremony & The Sword

Ha, so THAT'S what that fantabulous story was? From the sounds of it, this training zone sounds like a place near the astral, possibly like the LD zone, where the subconscious works out its 'stuff' while you are conscious and experiencing. Possibly right in-between LDing and projection?

bitsmart -
information illumination -
bitsmart@bitsmart.org -

[darrenbeck]

...

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Folks!

Moderation in these forums will be tolerant but fairly strict. Flames and any kind of abuse or offense between members will 'not' be tolerated.

The rules of philosophical debate, or at the very least, good manners, are the way to avoid moderation problems.  A range of penalties will apply, from post deletions and warnings, to temporary suspension of posting rights, and eventually from membership deletion and total banning. And, given the power of the forum engine we are using, this can and will be enforced.  Please understand that this is not a power trip by admin. This is to ensure that everyone feels safe and comfortable in our new online forum community.

But please note that fair critique, even harsh but fair and polite critique, is totally ok.  A good example of this is the recent 'Greg' posts and my eventual lengthy intellectual retort.  Use your intellect and do not resort to abuse!  We are all here to share and to learn from each other, and let me assure you that you can learn more from fair critique than from anything else. But you must admit that this is a totally different thing to 'flaming' and public ridicule; as happened a number of times on the original forum.

That said, we realize that no one is perfect and if you do happen to make a hasty post and later have regrets and want it deleted, please email a moderator or admin and it'll be quickly removed.

The moderators for these forums have been carefully picked.  All have proven their integrity,  and their interest and desire to actively participate in this online forum community, and for no other reasons.


Finally, I would like to invite everyone to argue or critique my above statements, and/or to make suggestions they feel would improve the state of this forum. This type of post should be directed to this forum topic, re its related to forum bugs and etc.

Website bugs, critique and suggestions should also be posted here.


Take care, Robert.