Quote:

---

Shroomism said:
trendal is not fabricating anything when he says that many S&P members have stopped posting in this forum altogether because they feel that they cannot express themselves without having their threads and ideas ripped apart. In the 5 years that I have been modding here I have personally received at least 40 PMs by different people on this very subject. People who fear to post their beliefs and thoughts in this forum for fear of being lashed out on and having their character 'cut down to size' as it were.

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I have nothing against Swami. I also see him as a valuable contributor and a good person at heart.. however that does not mean he is above the rules and can belittle the members here.

---

I have not seen any evidence of Swami belittling members in Spirituality and Philosophy or breaking any rules. The one example that was presented was a clearly objective statement that was not a personal attack of any sort. Swami has never openly flamed anyone, and has shown a consistent level of respect for all posters, even though some might perceive a lack thereof merely because his points disagree with theirs, or because they have an overactive ego constantly imagining threat and attack, projecting more onto his statements than he ever intended or meant.

I find it amazing that people are constricting and controlling the discussion of ideas in a forum that is suspossedly conducive to open, spiritual debate... I find it harsh that we are not allowed to discuss these matters in our own forum, as this issue directly relates to the happenings of our forum. We are a small, personal community, and to seperate discussion of this in our community is simply a control tactic. Our freedom of expression on topics relevant to our forum is being limited and divided. It is proclaimed that spirituality is a very personal thing, and that is why we must allow everyone the space to express it, but others with power who disagree with how certain people express their spirituality and try to teach others spriituality prevent them from doing so.

I find it unbelievable that certain people had to completely disrupt the flow of Spirituality and Philosophy in this manner. Taking that first step of unnecessary control has created chaos in a natural order that was running itself properly. Banning Swami when he did no clear, objective, majority-critisized wrong is an action that belies the very essence of spirituality. It is the equivalent of Shroomism being arrested for drug possession, really. Far more people have acclaimed Swami for directly assisting in their spiritual growth and evolution than those who have bitched and moaned about his inability to allow spiritual discussion (probably the equivalent of an egotistical student who creates an uproar when a fair teacher gave him a deserving, but low, grade on a test).

I have lost a lot of respect for Trendal, I have lost a lot of respect for Shroomism, and if Kaiowas supported the banning of Swami, I have lost even more respect for him (as I personally know him, and such actions would contradict his character). I think it is sad that a whiny minority, with pre-existing emotional and social problems before they ever even interacted with Swami, is being catered to and favored over a majority of interactive posters who love and support the community in which they participate and grow in.

If we are continued to be alienated, I will no longer be able to participate in this community, as what would remain of the community would offer nothing towards the profound benefits it offered before this whole ordeal had to be provoked. Spirituality and Philosophy cannot exist in a space such as what this place inevitably will become if this trend continues... 


Peace.

we're still waiting for examples of Swami's offenses (with links, of course). If there are just sooo many and these are just sooo clearly in volation of rules, then it should not be difficult to pull up a few, no? As of the date of my posting, both Trendal and Shroomism (as well as those who support the ban) have yet to provide anything substantial  and they appear downright hostile when asked to present their case. I guess they are not interested in fairness, transparency, and our respect. Hopefully this is not true.

Quote:

---

If we are continued to be alienated, I will no longer be able to participate in this community, as what would remain of the community would offer nothing towards the profound benefits it offered before this whole ordeal had to be provoked.

---

Quote:

---

bf6 said:
Why was he banned? Specifics please.

---

Essentially, people with observable problems with fundamental aspects of interacting with others felt emotionally attacked and angry with words that Swami typed, usually because Swami did not directly agree with them, and they felt the need to bitch and moan. Apparently banning a praised member of the community because a small handful of people have troubles with understanding basic thought processes solves the problem. 

The majority of posters in Spirituality and Philosophy seem to be agansit the banning of Swami. Aren't those the people that count?


Peace.

Quote:

---

Todcasil said:
there is an ignore button if people find him to abbrasive.

---

Exactly. When the problem only lies in the eyes of a small group of people, the ignore button is essential, as the rest of us who have no difficulty seeing clearly do not have to suffer. The ban button should only be used if a poster is actually creating an objectively-perceivable disruptance of the flow of the discussion. Swami has never done that, and does not deserve to be banned.

Perhaps if the majority of the S and P posters saw Swami as a nuisance who is interupting spiritual and philosophical debate, his ban would be necessary, but there is actually a greater percentage of people that directly attribute Swami for greatly helping them learn important spiritual lessons. Swami is not a moron and does not have ill intents - his purpose is clear to those who are open to learning from him.

It is one thing for an individual to not want to read another's words, it is another for them to feel they have the righteousness to take away other's right to read that person's words.   


Peace.

Quote:

---

Phluck said:
How about a new rule. If you don't want people to debate with you, put a note in your opening post saying "opposing viewpoints frighten and confuse me, and I don't want to hear them", and then it's against the rules to debate in that thread.

---

Either that, or direct posters who do not wish to have open idea exchange with others, which includes the possibillity that their ideas might be challenged, to the Pub.


Peace.

Quote:

---

i really don't even go in to s&p that often

---

Quote:

---

eric_the_red said:
i have and i really don't even go in to s&p that often.

---

Then you really don't know enough of what goes on in there to form a reality reflecting conclusion on what has been happening, right?

Point out some specific examples so we know exactly what you consider to be belittlement of others, so we can judge for ourselves whether or not your opinion is well justified.


Peace.

Quote:

---

zorbman said:

Quote:

---

i really don't even go in to s&p that often

---

---