Quote:

---

TheHateCamel said:
Swami was banned for debatable reasons.

He has to change to remain a member.

He either will or will not.

The administration can not and will not change their stance.

Pretty simple.



I appreciate all of the mods. Thank you.

I've posted in this thread about 10 times.

This discussion is drama.

I don't know what the the hell 'fan club' you're talking about.

Sorry you take this so seriously.

That's my case.

Good night.

---

Since that sums it up so well I think this long ass thread should just be closed.

Good job Camel

Quote:

---

RIPPLE said:
Since that sums it up so well I think this long
ass thread should just be closed.
Good job Camel

---

Quote:

---

FROG said:
Someone contacted me and asked why I wasn't joining in this support of Swami against his ban. This person was disgusted with me for not posting against this ban.

---

Quote:

---

It was literally expressed how fun it was to gang up on unpopular moderators and hound them and just keep pounding away.

---

Quote:

---

I can bet... even if you saw all the evidence, there is a good chance you'd be unimpressed. A lot of Swami's banning had to do with HOW MUCH WORK Swami has caused the S&P mods over the years, and how Swami repeatedly said he'd do better... before falling back into his OLD HABITS.... a few weeks after he'd promised to change. Notice, Swami never told the Staff to "Shove it" but his repeated actions were loud and clear.

---

From this, and from what I have read of Swami's posts in S&P -- that is, all or nearly all of them from the time I registered (over a year ago) and a great majority of those from a year before that (was a year before I felt a need to start posting) -- I can see what is being said.

People complained about Swami.
The staff got tired of people complaining about Swami.
The staff asked Swami to be nicer to people.
Swami said sure.
Swami continued debunking ideas and beliefs and people continued to cry about it to the staff.
The staff got tired of receiving feedback from those people and got rid of Swami.

That's all I've managed to pull out of this quagmire.  Every reason given for the original ban harks back to this same conclusion.

If I am wrong, I would request further clarification.

If I am right, I would request a public admittance that the original ban was the result of negative feedback and not the result of any infractions of any rules.

In a forum devoted to the discussion and debate of spiritual and philosophical questions, I would find it quite amazing that a voice would be silenced simply because those on the other side of the discussions and debates did not like being unable to prove their ideas and beliefs.

If you feel your ideas and beliefs require proof, you should seek ideas and beliefs that can be proven.  If they are proof to proof, you should not cry privately to the staff that it has been pointed out that absolutely nothing supports those ideas and beliefs.

The 8 hour ban I also feel was unneccessary, though Shirley I believe has admitted that somewhere.  I can't find it offhand.

The puppetry ban is clear -- can't contend that.  What is open for contention would be the duration.  If the first ban was completely unfounded, as I believe it to be, and the second ban questionable and hasty, as I believe it to be and also as the creator of the ban has stated..  we're down to one, real, concrete reason for a ban.  Having a puppet.  I say this because evading an unjust ban, though it is evading a ban..  never would have taken place without the initial injustice.  The penalties offset, still first down.

I still have seen no evidence whatsoever, or even any arguments supporting the contention, that Swami acted to manipulate both under the name of Swami and under the name of Gustavius. 
Have I been manipulated?  Go ahead -- tell me I'm just a tool of someone else.  Prove that I have been manipulated.  Prove that ANYBODY has been manipulated.
Gus's posts were not manipulating anything, and they did not cause this topic to become the demon that it is.  Half were Swami taking the part of a believer, the anti-Swami, and the other half were questions that Swami himself had been trying to raise but was unable to due to another banning.  Questions that would have been raised by other posters, I'm quite sure, but when being unfairly dealt with one does often become quite distrustful of others and makes efforts to see their own questions raised.

Again.  I've not seen any sort of manipulation taking place, and that was for the longest time the main reason given for his initial banning.  Asked for examples, we're told to just read his posts, just trust the mods and admins, and to get over it.
Still I find myself sitting here, having read his posts, unable to find any sort of manipulation taking place; because of this I find I cannot trust in the decision of the mods and the admins, as I trust myself over any other individual or group of individuals.  Get over it?  That's the sort of talk of G-men!   You can't expect a bunch of mushroom-eating potheads to just accept the line "Just get over it".  That's the line that the people who tell us that drugs are evil and bad and make you evil and bad use..  not verbatim but it's spawned from the same state of mind.  Obviously a great many here will take issue simply because of the wording used and the emotions that stirs in them. 

Now, is that being manipulative, and grounds for a ban?  >:O

Note, again, I'm not calling for any heads on a pike.  Just pointing things out.  Always much better for people to take a lump and learn to duck when walking through the doorway than to chop their legs off at the knees so they fit, I say.

Regardless, I don't view it as manipulative.  It COULD be interpreted as such, much as ANY post on ANY topic COULD be viewed as manipulative through the right glasses from the right vantage point.
That doesn't make it so, and even if there are a great number of posts from a single person that -could- be construed as manipulative, that STILL does not make it so.

Quote:

---

This intolerance does NOT affect ONLY Swami.

Am I the only one with a good memory around here?

---

Too right! How many of our old go rounds would have engendered a banning under this new paradigm?
And you are 100% correct re; Swami's posting style it is unchanged since I regged several years ago(hint to Cervantes).
And NO! nothing wrong with MY short or long term memory.

Well Sclorch I suppose to continue posting in S&P we are expected to politely refrain from any contestation of idea or principle....FEH! I am sick of weak minded Art Bell crap and W/O You,Swami and other LONG TIME denizens of S&P I see no futher reason to frequent one of my formerly favorite places for INTELLIGENT discourse and REASONED arguement
WR

Quote:

---

Mushmonkey said:
If I am wrong, I would request further clarification.

If I am right, I would request a public admittance that the original ban was the result of negative feedback and not the result of any infractions of any rules.

---

Quote:

---

FROG said:
Someone contacted me and asked why I wasn't joining in this support of Swami against his ban. This person was disgusted with me for not posting against this ban.

---