Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Silversoul]
    #4747810 -

They AREN'T????

I thought it was because the Mods in PA&L don't interpret the rules subjectively.

Politics aren't SUBJECTIVE???

Voting for the party your parents raised you to vote for... isn't subjective?

Which belief is more subjective?

Jesus died for our sins.

Or,

Republicans want small government.

ROTFLMFAO

THAT'S funny!

Thanks man, I needed that post.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Edited by Rose (10/03/05 12:47 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Rose]
    #4748348 -

Quote:
Saying nothing is better than LYING.

So, I will say nothing about Maia's comment ^^^... except that I saw WHAT was posted in The Mod Forum to get Swami banned for 14 days... and I remember WHO posted it, and I remember (roughly) the TITLE of the thread. And my recollection is QUITE different, than Maia's series of events.

Let's move on from the Swam-ban drivel.


Sorry if i pollute this thread, but i couldn't pass it when someone calls me a lier. The tittle of the thread did ask for a 14 days ban because, as discussed by the administration, that would be next step if Swami continued confronting the staff, which did happen.
I stand firm when i say no pro or con argumentation was discussed by the S&P moderation, it didn't.

Original thread at mod forum.
Quote:
I'm tired of making the same points over and over and over and over again.
I'll say no more, i'll not hit the button, so please take your own conclusions.

FYI
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...c=1#Post4730627



Quote:
" You're just adding more drama to this situation with this kind of assumptions." also, help to add drama to discussions such as this...


Accusing the accuser won't help you shifting Swami's burden. In fact, it was him the one who brings my name into this discussion, yet you don't show coherence by not referring any of his accusations.

Quote:
But, you DON'T want to fight that fight out here. Not with honest Cerv... watching your every move.

Soooooooo.....

How 'bout taking the opportunity to talk about YOUR FORUM, and HOW TO FIX IT, in this thread?


I won't comment this but it comes to my mind it just fuels more drama. S&P is not MY FORUM, i just moderate it. I'm not obligated to respond at every and each point in this thread. Although i believe it's positive and i appreciate the fact that members do try to help with some points, the thing is the productive and decisive threads about S&P are at the mod forum, not here.

This and other threads are being read by the staff, and there are some very good ideas being discussed, so keep it coming. In the end some ideas will be used, some won't.

If you want to read about the way I, the other S&P mods and the staff plan to FIX IT, read the poll thread and you'll have most of your questions answered.

Quote:
I really set this discussion up, so YOU wouldn't have to cross any lines.

You're welcome.



Cynicism, something you hardly find in any of my posts ...

Oh, and btw, since Swami doesn't want to respond to my question, maybe you'd like to share your thoughts about it.

"
Before replying please tell, explain and elucidate everyone regarding the objective and purpose of this thread:

Quote:
DISCLAIMER: I am highly sensitive to having my expressed beliefs questioned or examined by others. Please post only support and encouragement on this thread.

Let's discuss why she leaves money for molars.

"

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Edited by MAIA (10/03/05 06:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MAIA]
    #4748449 -

Quote:
Republicans want small government.


That's not subjective, it's just a lie. :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Rose]
    #4748484 -

Cervantes said:
Be sure to come back when you have a point to make.


I looked back on this tread to see where I got off track. I think it was where I asked a question of the moderators 3 times and got no response. I had nowhere to go at that point because I was effectively derailed. The fact that there are hardly any mods in this discussion speaks volumes to me. My point being that they are uninvolved in S&P. The fun job of being able to decide Swamis fate being about the entent of their interest it seems. Some mods don't seem to be in any of the threads on this important issue.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Edited by Icelander (10/03/05 08:37 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Icelander]
    #4748532 -

Just because we don't post, doesn't mean we aren't here.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Redstorm]
    #4748670 -

Redstorm said:
Quote:
Republicans want small government.


That's not subjective, it's just a lie. :wink:


I was about to mention that between the two statements, that one was demonstrably false.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Shroomism]
    #4748684 -

Shroomism said:
Just because we don't post, doesn't mean we aren't here.


I've been watching...

and eating  :popcorn:


--------------------
Laterz, Road

Who the hell you callin crazy?
You wouldn't know what crazy was if Charles Manson was eating froot loops on your front porch!

Brainiac said:
PM the names with on there names, that means they have mushrooms for sale.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Shroomism]
    #4748693 -

Shroomism said:
Just because we don't post, doesn't mean we aren't here.


That's all you have to say? How about responding to my question.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Icelander]
    #4748835 -

I think it was where I asked a question of the moderators 3 times and got no response.

Time to invoke the 'Icelander Rule'.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Swami]
    #4748841 -

It's already been ignored and I will ask no more and draw my own conclusions.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Icelander]
    #4748845 -

Amen!


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Rose]
    #4748933 -

Quote:
On a similar, but completely different note, the PA&L forum covers difficult territory, much like S&P.

I wonder why there is MUCH less drama in PA&L... when Swami posts there too!

Could it be the BETTER set of rules?


This question was brought earlier by you at the mod forum and i thought i gave you a reasonable explanation.

I quote myself,
Quote:
PA&L is a totally different business. S&P is not polarized like PA&L, PA&L discussions are based in two sides of politics (Republicans/Democrats), where both extremes talk the same language, politics [, thus their are susceptible of having a fair debate under the current PA&L rules]. S&P deals with two different languages, spirituality and philosophy.


Quote:
 
   
Quote:
 
    1. No Flaming

    2. Write a disclaimer if you don't want (or can't handle) hurt feelings.





Add a new Mod or two (picked by S&P), and live in harmony?

Two rules, instead of TWO FORUMS.

Worked for PA&L.

How am I wrong here?



S&P already had a less strict set of rules, it didn't work back then, why should it work now ? The "no trolling" and "be respectful" rules were added because of the constant spiritual-bashing in spiritual threads, but it looks it didn't help much, as there is still continued spiritual-bashing, mostly disguised as an urgent need some bashers have, to prove beliefs as being right or wrong. There's no bashing in threads with a philosophic nature, so it would be good idea to have less rules in the future P&R forum. I agree and support with this idea, in fact that's also stated in the S&P poll thread.

Regarding the disclaimer, IMHO it sounds less and less like a good idea. Its concept has already been promptly exploited in the tooth fairy thread. Relating a disclaimer as a "don't want (or can't handle) hurt feelings" kind of argumentation is a humiliating way to state spiritual people are a bunch of cry babies with no intelligence to debate in a scrutiny basis, so a rule is needed for them to be happy :smirk: . This assumption is very far from reality, spiritual people want a place to freely discuss spiritual matters without the scrutiny many spiritual-bashers like to impose. Therefore, IMHO the most reasonable disclaimer idea would be something like "Write a disclaimer if you don't want to be scrutinized or your beliefs questioned".

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MAIA]
    #4748981 -

This assumption is very far from reality, spiritual people want a place to freely discuss spiritual matters without the scrutiny...

Doesn't make sense. See defintions below.

WEBSTER

dis?cuss ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sks)
tr.v. dis?cussed, dis?cuss?ing, dis?cuss?es

To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.


ex?am?ine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zmn)
tr.v. ex?am?ined, ex?am?in?ing, ex?am?ines

To observe carefully or critically
To study or analyze
To determine the qualifications, aptitude, or skills of by means of questions or exercises.
To question formally, as to elicit facts or information; interrogate


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4749035 -

Quote:
Ice, You and veritas, since you are speaking for her...


No one speaks for me but myself.  (As my sweet Icelander is well aware! :wink:)

If you want clarity on my actions, or you wish to criticize my actions, I suggest you take your own advice and use a PM or Support Ticket.  Guessing/Mind reading/Asking my partner is not an effective way to understand my intentions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Shroomism]
    #4749083 -

Good to see you Shroomism. :thumbup:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MAIA]
    #4749106 -

Yes, S&P had less strict rules, and it was the SUBJECTIVITY which caused you problems THEN, as well.

Ask Swami...

Quote:
Maia said:

PA&L is a totally different business. S&P is not polarized like PA&L, PA&L discussions are based in two sides of politics (Republicans/Democrats), where both extremes talk the same language, politics [, thus their are susceptible of having a fair debate under the current PA&L rules]. S&P deals with two different languages, spirituality and philosophy.


And PA&L deals with THREE Languages, Politics, Activism and Law.


Also, there are FREE THINKERS among the Democrats and Republicans... let's not forget them.

Try again...


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Rose]
    #4749126 -

Don't EVEN think about getting me in the middle of this...  :mad2:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Swami]
    #4749134 -

Too late man!?!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Swami]
    #4749225 -

A)

Before replying please tell, explain and elucidate everyone regarding the objective and purpose of this thread:

Quote:
DISCLAIMER: I am highly sensitive to having my expressed beliefs questioned or examined by others. Please post only support and encouragement on this thread.

Let's discuss why she leaves money for molars.



B)

So i ask, can you tell me which rule was broken by the moderation ?

C)
Quote:
Being loving is not a requirement for scrutinizing ideas.




But it is a requirement if you want to achieve a positive spiritual experience, don't you think ?

D)
Quote:
So when I attempt to stop someone from being fooled by a New-Age con man or correct an erroneous idea, I am most likely doing it out of:

A: Love

B: Meanness




None, because your argument is based on prejudice per se.

Would you care to comment or\and answer to this simple questions first ?

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Rose]
    #4749236 -

I am a reformed debunkaholic.  :sun:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* YOu Mother F*#&$r's
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 KingOftheThing 17,223 115 11/19/03 04:04 AM
by PoetFirst
* &amp EffedS 1,133 3 09/08/03 07:26 AM
by Seuss
* Other Drugs Discussion: Temporarily Closed & Fully Moderated
( 1 2 all )		 geokillsA 5,313 27 03/17/03 06:36 PM
by geokills
* What discussion board software does The Shroomery run on? LucidDream 1,509 5 01/02/05 03:57 PM
by Jim
* FREE DOOBIE! Calbha 770 1 02/14/04 06:37 PM
by geokills
* This free IPODS spam shit.
( 1 2 all )		 Barbi 3,949 30 07/28/04 04:44 AM
by Shroomism
* Free stuff! Anonymous 547 2 09/05/02 02:59 PM
by Anonymous
* The Other Drugs Discussion problem resin 1,935 13 08/14/03 10:38 AM
by Thor

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
13,688 topic views. 0 members, 79 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.