|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
 The Locking of Threads 
#3598040 - 01/08/05 01:18 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Seems to be more about the poster than the topic. Please clarify the criterion as I do not see "giving" and "spreading cheer" to be lock-worthy while the "photon belt" is a popular subject necessary to aid us in spiritual growth.
Who is to decide that "Gourdito", my personal belief, is less relevant than invisible aliens? Is it merely because some moderators don't believe in Gourdito?
*Swami looks up "bias" in Webster...*
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
 skystone
stop the motion
Registered: 11/08/04
Posts: 465
Loc: state,country,etc.
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
 Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598067 - 01/08/05 01:28 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Swami, why did they ban you? I still didn't find out...
What did you do or say?
--------------------
"..and suddenly it began to rain"
Edited by skystone (01/08/05 01:28 PM)
|
zahudulallah
Sexual Heretic
Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 8 years, 7 days
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598081 - 01/08/05 01:32 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Let it go, brother.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,909
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598094 - 01/08/05 01:36 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Aliens and photon belts sound so much more interesting, exciting and....stuff.
God forbid we actually read about the stuff that goes unnoticed in day to day living.
Gee, why watch PBS or TLC when there's a movie called "SPACE DRAGON"??
Welcome Back! 
--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: skystone]
#3598099 - 01/08/05 01:37 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
*Swami trembling mightily in fear of retribution* (Unsure if I can respond without being whipped!)
Still don't know as I can get neither public nor private clarification.
You will notice the large number of shroomery spokesmen posting only further obsfucates the issues. When I strongly suggested having only one person speak on behalf of the administrators (as in successful real-world chain-of-commands), the idea was taken as treasonous and got my ban lengthened even though my intent was totally benevolent.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
skystone
stop the motion
Registered: 11/08/04
Posts: 465
Loc: state,country,etc.
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598138 - 01/08/05 01:48 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, but what was your last post? What did you say?
Was it that "piss me off" thread that got people angry?
--------------------
"..and suddenly it began to rain"
|
blink
eye of horus
Registered: 03/31/02
Posts: 11,337
Loc: Geographic Location (Stat...
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598174 - 01/08/05 01:58 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I am eating Ritz crackers and drinking chocolate milk
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Mr. Dogma Free
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 10,705
Loc: The Hand
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: blink]
#3598235 - 01/08/05 02:11 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"I am eating Ritz crackers and drinking chocolate milk."
Try some peanut butter on the crackers, it will taste like a Reese's cup that way when you drink the chocolate milk.
--------------------
Don't submit to dogma.
|
Ped
Circumspect
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 2,347
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 29 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598249 - 01/08/05 02:13 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Bad form, Swami. Not very impressive at all.
If you're going to maintain an ounce of integrity while acting so offended by the way this community has imposed unreasonable expectations on you and your conduct, it might be time for you to let go of your own unreasonable expectations of this community. If you want people to show a little tolerance for your sometimes inflammatory and belittling stance (to the extent that you yourself have admitted), you may want to consider showing a little tolerance toward those whom you believe have some sort of partisanship against you.
If you plain and simple don't like this community, as is apparent, then why do you continue to post here? Why do you wage war on it so? Why do you create a disruption with threads like these? Is it that you feel this community belongs to you, or that it owes you something? Were the crimes against you really so severe? Why should this community adjust to suit your expectations?
Why are you doing this?
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3598301 - 01/08/05 02:24 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Bad form, Swami. Not very impressive at all.
My ego is in shambles as I have failed to impress you.
Blah blah blah
Did your diatribe really add ANY clarification on what is or is not a reasonable topic to start? Or was it not a goading attack of your own?
Why are you doing this?
Understanding guidelines is the FIRST component (not the last) of compliance, would you not agree?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Ped
Circumspect
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 2,347
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 29 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598402 - 01/08/05 02:46 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>> My ego is in shambles as I have failed to impress you.
Perhaps instead of concerning yourself with how impressed I might be with you, you should consider raising the standards you have in place for yourself.
>> Did your diatribe really add ANY clarification on what is or is not a reasonable topic to start?
Please, Swami, don't act as though you're the least bit interested in discovering what we feel are reasonable or unreasonable thread topics. In requesting that we "please clarify the criterion", you are setting up stage upon which you will strut back and forth spewing contempt for this community and it's policies. You have your mouth open and your ears closed. Anyone can see that.
Don't think I'm putting myself in a position to defend this community and it's policies against the blade-wielding Swami. That would be a battle without end, a childish waste of time.
If you were at all interested in finding a place in this community, in harmonizing yourself with this community, even with those whom you believe are so against you, you would be showing a little more tolerance toward those aspects of this community that you disagree with. You would not be expecting that everybody else adjust to accomodate your presence here.
Are you interested in co-existing peacefully with the rest of this community?
>> Or was it not a goading attack of your own?
I'm not interested in fighting with you.
>> *Swami trembling mightily in fear of retribution* (Unsure if I can respond without being whipped!)
Why do you do things like this? What do you hope to accomplish? I don't ask questions like these to emphasize a point of some kind, or to sharpen an attack; I'm sincerely interested in direct answers to these questions. You have shown only contempt for this community since your re-arrival. Why? What do you have to prove?
--------------------
|
Moonshoe
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 5,481
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 17 days, 3 hours
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598439 - 01/08/05 02:59 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
welcome back swamster! i thought your last ban was a permanent one.
i think a more or less general consensus here is that you banning was if not totally unjust, at least unnescesary....
but it happend. and no one wants it to happen again. And we were just starting to get back into the old swing of things. so how bout you drop it, continue to post your own insights and contribute to threads.
Keep the following in mind:
adress your disagreements with peoples ideas ONLY on a logical, point by point basis. You must do your best to avoid anything even resembeling an ad hominem attack, dont bait, and basically just get back to ideas instead of drama.
Then we can all have fun together
Peace
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3598440 - 01/08/05 02:59 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
OK so you admit your point was off-topic and did not help to clarify. Thank you.
Please, Swami, don't act as though you're the least bit interested in discovering what we feel are reasonable or unreasonable thread topics.
That is one of the most contemptuous responses that I have heard.
Don't think I'm putting myself in a position to defend this community and it's policies against the blade-wielding Swami. That would be a battle without end, a childish waste of time.
Whereas your attack on my intention is a mature and wonderful use of time.
There is no contempt against the community as you state; there is contempt for cowardess and lies however.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (01/08/05 03:00 PM)
|
Lightningfractal
Nutcase
Registered: 06/24/03
Posts: 14,899
Loc: Heaven and Hell
Last seen: 3 months, 9 days
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598491 - 01/08/05 03:09 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm all behingd ya 110% my swami !!!
--------------------
Hi how's it going, wanna kick Heroin basically painlessly on your own, in your own house, without any government "help" ,or the "help" of a crazy condescending, judgmental medical doctor? Read this:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=42&Number=7342616&page=0&fpart=all
|
Ped
Circumspect
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 2,347
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 29 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598603 - 01/08/05 03:25 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>> OK so you admit your point was off-topic and did not help to clarify. Thank you.
If you insist.
>> Whereas your attack on my intention is a mature and wonderful use of time.
Yes, I do hope to be of some help, to reach some positive end. Sometimes that requires that I examine others critically, or say things which might make them upset or uncomfortable. Although it's best to minimize that effect as much as possible, sometimes it simply can't be avoided.
>> There is no contempt against the community as you state; there is contempt for cowardess and lies however.
Very well. Do you suppose that saying things such as what's quoted below will put an end to the cowardice and lies which have you so aggitated? Will pointing the finger in this way bring reconciliation between you and those lying and behaving cowardly, or do you suppose it will increase the divide between you and them from which cowardice and dishonesty first arose?
Pointing the finger..
>> *Swami looks up "bias" in Webster...*
Pointing the finger..
>> *Swami trembling mightily in fear of retribution* (Unsure if I can respond without being whipped!)
Isn't it true that pointing the finger is both cowardly and dishonest? When you point the finger, do you look your enemy in the face, or do you disparage him infront of crowds? Isn't that cowardice? When you point the finger, do you intend to open up a dialog, to discover the real cause of your dispute, or do you presuppose a guilty party and exonerate yourself? Isn't that dishonest? In pointing the finger, are you not comitting the same crimes of which you accuse others?
If it's true that you want to put an end to cowardice and lies, it is first necessary for you to cease your pursuit of victory, genuinely acknowledge your own mistakes on the matter, and develop the capacity to forgive. Even if your enemy is unwilling to meet you half way with a similar gesture, at least you can be secure in your own character, certain that you've done the right thing.
Are you interested in peacefully co-existing with the rest of this community, or are you interested in securing a victory over it?
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3598626 - 01/08/05 03:31 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sometimes that requires that I examine others critically, or say things which might make them upset or uncomfortable.
Sounds like a bannable attitude to me from everything that I have read.
Are you interested in peacefully co-existing with the rest of this community, or are you interested in securing a victory over it?
Funny, but that is what was said to the first black woman to refuse to sit in the back of the bus in the southern USA. Guess she should have "just gone along".
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Lightningfractal
Nutcase
Registered: 06/24/03
Posts: 14,899
Loc: Heaven and Hell
Last seen: 3 months, 9 days
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598637 - 01/08/05 03:34 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
so you're gonna martyr yourself then? I'll miss you. 
--------------------
Hi how's it going, wanna kick Heroin basically painlessly on your own, in your own house, without any government "help" ,or the "help" of a crazy condescending, judgmental medical doctor? Read this:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=42&Number=7342616&page=0&fpart=all
|
Moonshoe
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 5,481
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 17 days, 3 hours
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598646 - 01/08/05 03:35 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"Funny, but that is what was said to the first black woman to refuse to sit in the back of the bus in the southern USA. Guess she should have "just gone along". "
hardly comparable swami. Hes just saying, what is more important to you, returning to this enjoyable community in a productive and fun way, or forcing someone to apologize to you or something?
i was once banned for what i thought was a totally bullshit reason, and i never said a word about it sense, until now. And it was a much longer ban than yours.
But who cares? i came back, had lots of fun, met some cool new people, learned a bit and maybe taught a bit. THats what this place is all about.
its up to you what you do but my honest advice is that you just forget this ever hapend to you
--------------------
|
zorbman
Be Prepared
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,746
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Moonshoe]
#3598669 - 01/08/05 03:41 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
hardly comparable swami.
I think it's extremely comparable.
No justice, no peace.
--------------------
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? - Ron Paul
|
Moonshoe
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 5,481
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 17 days, 3 hours
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: zorbman]
#3598679 - 01/08/05 03:44 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
oh yeah right it is comparable now that you mention it....
standing up against hundreds of years of racial opression... bitching about a 2 week ban from an internet forum....
--------------------
|
zorbman
Be Prepared
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,746
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Moonshoe]
#3598684 - 01/08/05 03:45 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Injustice in any form is abhorant. The metaphor was right on.
--------------------
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? - Ron Paul
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Moonshoe]
#3598702 - 01/08/05 03:50 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Why is is hardly comparable? Do you not believe that she got the same advice from many peers? How is one injustice different than another? Is it just the size of the injustice?
its up to you what you do but my honest advice is that you just forget this ever hapend to you
As it has never been clearly explained to me what bannings 1 and 2 were for, how can I "tow the line"?
Banning #1 was for the sheer number of complaints (not the violation itself) and the "final straw" was for responding politely to Trendal's warning (as posted in it's entirety) about a totally non-offensive thread.
Banning #2 was for "poor attitude" and the ad hoc charge of cross-posting that didn't exist (two totally distinct topics) was later added. What do I possibly learn from that?
Swami: What specifically did I do wrong?
Trendal: You KNOW what you did wrong.
Geokills: I can't believe that you do not know what you did wrong.
There you have it. Clear, concise and easy to follow guidelines.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
LunarEclipse
Mr. Dogma Free
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 10,705
Loc: The Hand
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598703 - 01/08/05 03:50 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"Funny, that is what was said to the first black woman to refuse to sit in the back of the bus in the southern USA. Guess she should have "just gone along."
Swami, do you feel your civil rights have been violated?
After all, even for white folks there is "disturbing the peace".
Now, just as the sheriff in real life gets to decide who they feel are actually disturbing the peace, the S&P admins can make that same decision. In fact, the S&P moderators don't even have to answer to the public or the tax payers in justifying fairness about who they may choose to lock up. You of all people should know this.
Will the angry ex-employee returning to the corporate headquarters and rushing through and setting off the metal detectors be greeted with a smile and a handshake or a "stop that man!"?
--------------------
Don't submit to dogma.
|
Ped
Circumspect
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 2,347
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 29 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598705 - 01/08/05 03:51 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>> Sounds like a bannable attitude to me from everything that I have read.
Well, it depends on motivation. A person's motivation is ascertained by observing their behaviour, their choice of words, or by referencing their conduct in past situations.
When examining others critically, there can be two types of motivation. One is selfish and prideful, the other is unselfish and compassionate. Leaving all disparagements and pedestalization of either side behind, when one criticizes another with the intent to reign supreme over them, or with the idea in mind that their way of thinking is simply inferior and valueless, that in my opinion is a ban-worthy offense, because it is disrespectful and contrary to the progress of meaningful discussion. On the other hand, when one criticizes another with the hope that they might move past a certain view or behavior that is clearly causing distress for them and others, that is an action worth investing an amount of time and thought.
>> Funny, but that is what was said to the first black woman to refuse to sit in the back of the bus in the southern USA.
This is wildly out of context. Do you actually liken yourself to a persecuted minority fighting tirelessly for his own liberation from a looming oppressor? I find it hard to believe that you would stoop to such histrionics.
In asking whether or not you are interested in co-existing peacefully with the rest of the community, I am asking if you are willing to make the necessary adjustments which make co-existing peacefully a possibility. If it's true that you want to co-exist peacefully with the rest of this community, you would be demonstrating a willingness to cease your pursuit of victory, genuinely acknowledge your own mistakes on the matter, and develop the capacity to forgive. This isn't a matter of conformity, or of submitting to an unruly authority, as you are free to leave whenever you wish. It is a matter of character, self-assurance, and dignity.
It's because you seem so intent on victory over those who wronged you (and I do believe they wronged you to some extent) that I doubt your interest in co-existing peacefully with the rest of this community, or in soliciting from us what is a reasonable thread topic and what is not.
--------------------
Edited by Ped (01/08/05 03:58 PM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3598740 - 01/08/05 03:59 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
This is wildly out of context. Do you actually liken yourself to a persecuted minority fighting tirelessly for his own liberation from a looming oppressor? I find it hard to believe that you would stoop to such histrionics.
Your credulity is not at issue here.
I did not liken myself to anyone. I merely asked if she was given the same advice to go along peacefully with the status quo. She had two options: smile at her oppressors to be more Ped-like or to stand up and say "that is not good enough".
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
zorbman
Be Prepared
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,746
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3598780 - 01/08/05 04:11 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I am asking if you are willing to make the necessary adjustments which make co-existing peacefully a possibility
Is it fair that the entire burden for maintaining peace falls on one person's shoulders?
--------------------
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? - Ron Paul
|
Ped
Circumspect
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 2,347
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 29 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3598787 - 01/08/05 04:13 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
For the fourth or fifth time now, I'm not asking you behave like other people, and I'm certaintly not asking you to be more "Ped-like." I am trying to highlight what I think is obviously your true intention, your real motivation. I am identifying these things as harmful for you and this community, and I am trying to present an alternative. I'm trying to do this in your own language. Since that effort has failed, I'll have to fall back on plain old diplomacy.
In asking whether or not you are interested in co-existing peacefully with the rest of the community, I am asking if you are willing to make the necessary adjustments which make co-existing peacefully a possibility. This isn't a matter of conformity, or of submitting to an unruly authority, as you are free to leave whenever you wish. It is a matter of character, self-assurance, and dignity.
If it's true that you want to co-exist peacefully with the rest of this community, you would be demonstrating a willingness to cease your pursuit of victory, genuinely acknowledge your own mistakes on the matter, and develop the capacity to forgive.
If you are not interested in character, self-assurance, and dignity, and are instead interested in dominance, victory, and some fierce sense of internal solidarity, that's fine. I can't force you to adopt a certain stance. All I can do is offer the alternatives I have offered, in hopes that your acceptance of them will bring peace to you as well as this community. Frankly, and honestly, I'm disheartened by the polarizing effect you have on this community, and I'd much rather see you, I, and everybody else, get along.
For that to become a reality, however, it requires as much effort from you as it does the rest of us. That is what I want you to address. Are you willing? Even if it's only to disagree, are you willing to address that point?
--------------------
|
Ped
Circumspect
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 2,347
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 29 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: zorbman]
#3598834 - 01/08/05 04:27 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>> Is it fair that the entire burden for maintaining peace falls on one person's shoulders?
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the responsibility to adjust is entirely Swami's. Not at all. It is ours just as much. I'd be interested in hearing, preferably without the noise of sarcasm and finger-waving, what suggestions he might have for us on the matter.
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3598849 - 01/08/05 04:32 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
In asking whether or not you are interested in co-existing peacefully with the rest of the community...
I was not banned by the community as the solidarity shows otherwise, but by people with an agenda.
Why is integrity and honesty of so little importance to you?
As to the civil right's comparison that you fail to tackle, I was in the US Navy when I filed for a Conscientious Objector status. I had my life threatened (by the ship's doctor!) and was brought up on Captain's Masts (court martials) on three separate drummed up offenses (sound familiar?) Should I have gone along with community and partaken in the killing of other human beings just to better fit in?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (01/08/05 05:02 PM)
|
zorbman
Be Prepared
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,746
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3598889 - 01/08/05 04:43 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"Conquerors are always lovers of peace; they desire to enter your cities unopposed." -Plutarch
--------------------
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? - Ron Paul
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 15,869
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill 
Last seen: 10 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3599089 - 01/08/05 05:21 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I highly suggest you look at the TOS Swami. Harassment of your Fellow Shroomerites is not allowed. Then, take a look at the WA&F rules, which are even more strict.
Both your first, and second ban fit into THAT category: HARASSMENT. I always thought you were banned the SECOND time because of the harsh things you said to me... but cross-posting seems to be added on to the reason for your banning as well.
You would probably help yourself, by reading all the threads about you (there were several) in CHRONOLOGICAL order, to get a better idea of what may have been explained while you were gone.
I also suggest you look at the new S&P rules, updated with you in mind. The new rules should be more clear.
Then you should look at the threads in this forum, How Not To Talk, parts 1 & 2. That should give you an idea of EXACTLY what type of behavior S&P Mods are keeping their eyes on... and WHY.
Once you've caught up on your reading... you'll quickly discover that MOST of your questions have been answered thoroughly, SEVERAL times.
In fact, S&P probably doesn't need ALL the threads you started TODAY, about your ban, and OTHER non- S&P related stuff.
PM any mod you wish... if you desire productive, private, discussion... or pick a favorite thread, and stick to it.
But,
Please review the past threads FIRST. We've ALL talked this issue to death, and frankly, I know I'm just tired of repeating myself... I imagine others are as well.
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
Ped
Circumspect
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 2,347
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 29 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: zorbman]
#3599150 - 01/08/05 05:34 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>> Why is integrity and honesty of so little importance to you?
>> I was in the US Navy when I filed for a Conscientious Objector status..
In emphathizing with this story, I can see now where we have our misunderstanding.
You believe (correct me if I'm wrong), for your own reasons, that those who took action against you were behaving without honesty, without integrity. You believe that they had an agenda. I believe that they took action against you because they were being hypersensitive, perceiving you as a aggressive bully when in fact you are something else. In the case of the moderators, I believe that they took action against you in response to the wishes of this community.
It's from this point of view that I formed the rest of my opinions on the matter, including those expressed here today. With the belief that the moderators were responding in the only way that they knew how, and with the belief that the community was reacting too strongly to your demeanor, I concluded that the best way to solve this problem would be for both you and the community to adjust so that differences can be reconciled without anyone feeling as though they've been imposed upon. I decided that the community should learn to recognize your unqiue discussion style and be less reactionary to it, and that you should make minor changes to your discussion style so that what you say is not so easily reacted to. That seemed like the best solution.
When it appeared to me that you were unwilling to make an adjustment in your discussion style, it appeared that you expected everybody else to make adjustments to you and your discussion style. It's because of this appearance that it seemed that you were more interested in conquering this community than in being a member of it. What I hadn't considered, though, was the foundation upon which your point of view has been built. Your unwillingness to change to accomodate others has to do with your belief that those who took action against you had a personal vendetta against you. An agenda. From this position, any adjustment made on your part would be a concession to that agenda and a submission to a kind of oppression. Essentially, you will have been imposed upon. Naturally, you want to protect yourself from that.
So we can see now that we are disagreeing on this subject matter because we are coming from two different places. I was coming from a space that believed you were bringing an agenda against this community. You were coming from a space that believed this community was bringing an agenda against you. Let's start over.
First, understand that I don't wish for you to be imposed upon anymore than you do, and that I'm trying to address this in a way that benefits the community first and foremost, with no partisanship for or against you. Unless I come to believe that you are trying to impose your own will on others, I have no reason (beyond my own insecurity or ignorance) to maintain bias against you.
I don't agree that members of this community had an agenda against you. I believe they were simply overreacting, and that the moderators were responding to that reaction in the only way they knew how. I could be wrong; I don't have all the information. Why do you believe that members of this community had a personal vendetta against you?
--------------------
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 15,869
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill
Last seen: 10 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Ped]
#3599258 - 01/08/05 05:45 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Ped, you've come remarkably close to the truth. I have no clue what Swami was thinking (so I don't know if you are right about THAT part), but you read the Moderators actions and words VERY well. There is no conspiracy against Swami behind the scenes... but there has been much discussion about this topic... also, our opinions and stance have changed a bit over time.
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Cervantes]
#3599319 - 01/08/05 05:52 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I always thought you were banned the SECOND time because of the harsh things you said to me...
I used only your words in context. Guess that is hard to swallow. Your fabrications were somehow "helpful" though...
Once you've caught up on your reading... you'll quickly discover that MOST of your questions have been answered thoroughly, SEVERAL times.
Not once have any direct questions been answered.
In fact, S&P probably doesn't need ALL the threads you started TODAY, about your ban, and OTHER non- S&P related stuff.
The threads were started for various reasons, but questions were asked of me and I answered. Let's see how many threads on prayer and aliens. Guess they all have to be locked under the no cross-posting laws.
PM any mod you wish... if you desire productive, private, discussion...
I did and all my questions were ignored. My last e-mail wasn't even acknowledged. Is that what you call productive?
or pick a favorite thread, and stick to it.
I tried in WF and it was locked before any answers were given.
What avenues do I have left?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 15,869
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill
Last seen: 10 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3599470 - 01/08/05 06:14 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
GOD Swami... that is a tough call.
You really aren't being painted into a corner. You CAN have your cake and eat it too. You should know this... there is NO Swami conspiracy. I promise. I swear... although, I understand why you're leery.
I haven't seen ALL of Today's locked threads, but I imagine the Mods and Admins are hoping for a more Respectful tone... and locked what they thought were... meh... "Loaded" threads (Threads that looked combative). I don't think you need to kiss any ass (although it may seem like that's what the Mods and Admins want right now). Aside from the puppet, I don't see anything you need to apologize about. You certainly served your time... perhaps too much time. But your TONE still needs work. Since your TONE led to your FIRST and SECOND bans, it behooves you to find a way to alter your tone, while still being true to yourself. I don't know if you are even AWARE of how forceful and condecending your posts can read. I've sure had to re-examine my own posting style since this issue came to surface... so I KNOW where you are coming from.
Sadly, we Mods and Admins needed those Extended bans... to figure everything out... BEFORE you returned... so your time away was sorta' needed... for all of us to get on the same page. We certainly weren't on the same page when you were banned the first time. We HAVE fixed that.
You are well respected in this community. You play a good Swami... but Religion leads to WAR... all the time. This forum is no exception. You speak YOUR truth, and THAT is admirable... what I think the Mods WANT you to do... is choose your words more wisely. Continue being honest... honesty's relative though, and you need to respect other people's right to THEIR own version of honesty while continuing to be true to YOUR personal honesty.
Discussion does not have to be heated... even in THIS forum. Frankly, heating a discussion about BELIEFS, FEELS like harassment. Is it harassment? IMO, No... BUT Harassment, like honesty, is relative.
Harassment is subjective and therefore it is up to the mods of the forum, and admins to look at the potential harassment (case by case) and decide if it is worth banning someone for their actions. You lost THAT time. You got banned for your actions. It was ruled Harassment. That rule is in the TOS.
As for some of the things I said after your FIRST ban... what you quoted right before your second ban... Sorry I pissed you off. You pissed Shirl off, by ignoring her advice, and abusing the WA&F Forum. That is not a good Forum to BLATANTLY ignore Moderator warnings, after a ban. Not a good place at all. You were playing with fire.
But to adress your concerns, I WAS being honest in those posts... but I had different motives than you... and in SOME cases, my opinions changed over time as MORE info came to light... both about YOU and the things that led to your ban. I did think we had more evidence than we did. I misread a post and that set me astray for a day or two. Many of my "lies" came from me being misinformed by faulty reading.
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
Edited by Cervantes (01/08/05 06:33 PM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Cervantes]
#3599524 - 01/08/05 06:27 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If you truly want peace then you will start by a public apology and for once answer my questions. You come off all sincere and yet you fail to explain why you said:
1. I was banned from another website. (a lie)
2. I told Trendal to "shove it". (a lie)
3. I received countless PMs and everything possible was done to prevent a banning. (a lie - unless you count stuff from over a year ago for which I served my sentence).
4. Initially it was also said that I had broken too many rules, then when no examples were found the story changed.
Falsehoods have NO PLACE when attempting to speak the truth. Maybe if you set an example with some HONESTY the tone and drama will die down.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 15,869
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill
Last seen: 10 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3599622 - 01/08/05 06:54 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
1. I was banned from another website. (a lie)
Can you please point me to where I said THAT? If I said it, I'm sorry, I was mistaken... it MUST'VE been RIGHT AFTER your first ban. There was talk of you having been banned from another website, but I never said anything about it (that I remember). I did say you could visit ANY website in the world but this one during your ban. Perhaps you misread. Perhaps I forgot what I said. Honestly though, there were rumors of your banishment  from another website, that were running around DURING your first ban. It was presented as evidence, and ultimately ruled FALSE. If I said something about THAT, I spoke too soon... but really, I think you have me confused with someone else.
2. I told Trendal to "shove it". (a lie)
I was speaking metaphorically... you never LITERALLY said "Shove it." but, when a Mod asks you to change your behavior, and you basically reply "No." but with a LOT more words... forgive me for shortening what you actually said into "Shove it." You said something else... but by ignoring THAT warning the way you did, you likely, sealed your FIRST ban. Perhaps that was a PM where you could have chosen your words a little better. You may as well should have told Trendal to, "Shove it." It would've saved us ALL some time.
3. I received countless PMs and everything possible was done to prevent a banning. (a lie - unless you count stuff from over a year ago for which I served my sentence).
I have a hunch Swami, that you are not aware of ALL the things that have been done by Mods in the past concerning your behavior. I will gladly discuss my actions as a Mod, but in THIS case, it isn't my place to say. You create LOTS of tiny waves. You've had a remarkable effect on the Moderator's Forum over the years (really, but I CAN'T say how... I want to still be a Mod tomorrow  ), but you have managed to stay clean for quite some time. It is amazing HOW much drama you've been close to over the years... yet until now, you've escaped any HARSH punishment. I know it may seem like these bans came out of the blue... but honestly Swami, there's a pretty LONG Swami history of near-bans... amongst other things. I do think it is unfair that THOSE things were used against you when you didn't even know they existed. Many things have been set in motion over the years, because of you, or the people who have been offended by you. That's TRUE. I wish I could give you details... but it doesn't matter MUCH... really. We Mods have a better understanding of your posting style now, and will (hopefully) not ban you w/o CLEAR guidelines for you to follow EVER AGAIN.
4. Initially it was also said that I had broken too many rules, then when no examples were found the story changed.
I discovered the LACK of evidence and changed my story. No apology, my Honesty just changed... when more information came into light .
That's the best you'll get from me. I have apologized where I feel I owe you one... and did my best to explain the OTHER questions to the best of my abilities.
Ultimately, I blindly trusted that the Mods and Admins had MORE solid evidence than they actually had... I will not make that mistake again. Not if I can help it. Sorry. I was more concerned with quelling the MOB that defending you at that time... and Swami... I hated you a bit for the drama that erupted because of your ban. ESPECIALLY post Gustavius.
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
Moonshoe
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 5,481
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 17 days, 3 hours
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3599647 - 01/08/05 06:59 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
your right. i retract previous statements. you have a right to know exactly what you did, and the metaphor was solid, its just the matter of degree that threw me off.
peace
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,909
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3599678 - 01/08/05 07:06 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Be that it may or may have not been Cervantes who fabricated the lie that you were banned from another site...
Shroomism said it.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/3492248/an//page//vc/1
"Swami has been permanently banned from other bulletin boards for the exact same behaviour. He's been warned multiple times, in public and PM."
--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Cervantes]
#3599693 - 01/08/05 07:08 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Honestly though, there were rumors of your banishment from another website, that were running around DURING your first ban.
So an unfounded rumor WAS publicly presented as a reason and this is NOT a problem? Why would someone start such a rumor UNLESS THERE WAS AN AGENDA? No one here knows where else I post and under what names. This was an out and out fabrication designed for one puprose only.
I was speaking metaphorically... you never LITERALLY said "Shove it."
Not even close. I was very polite. You don't see how you "abbreviation" added more fuel to the fire?
I discovered the LACK of evidence and changed my story. No apology, my Honesty just changed... when more information came into light
But this was certainly not an honest presentation to the community. Others knew the truth and said nothing. This is where the lack of trust comes into play.
Thanks you for coming as clean as anyone yet has to date.
Perhaps others will get a slightly better taste of why I am so indignant.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (01/08/05 07:09 PM)
|
trendal
point of inflection
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,182
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: The Locking of Threads [Re: Swami]
#3599702 - 01/08/05 07:10 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So an unfounded rumor WAS publicly presented as a reason and this is NOT a problem?
As far as I know, that "rumor" was never used as justification for your ban.
This thread has gone on long enough, swami. If you have specific concerns about either of your recent bans, please take them up with the Administration or in the WA&F forum. This is not the forum for this type of thread.
--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
