Good bye

[Nick_A]

Nick,

What on earth are you on about. Examples please. Lessons cannot be learned if examples cannot be pointed to broad statements are simply no help.

You don't understand this issue for the same reason that you don't understand why Berg is now taking his challenge to the Supreme court. You are primarily concerned with "results" while these issues are about valuing the "process."

Secular politically correct influences including intimidation seek to create subjective results. The essence of religion values maintaining the psychological process that manifests as the continuation of quality human awareness.

You know the old story of the goose that lays the golden eggs. People fixated with results seek the eggs without realizing that it is the healthy goose killed off through secular manipulation that lays them.

I've learned how valuable respecting the process, as with the constitution for example, is in order to continue the flow of eggs. In this case politically correct intimidation only destroys the process that reveals the truth of the human condition in favor of creating an imaginary image. It simply cannot be supported so as to "fit in" by those aware of the harm it causes through supporting ignorance of the human condition.

 

[kiwimac]

There is nothing politically correct in asserting that the preponderance of evidence supports Obama's US citizenship.

 

[Vajradhara]

bye.

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

You don't understand this issue for the same reason that you don't understand why Berg is now taking his challenge to the Supreme court. You are primarily concerned with "results" while these issues are about valuing the "process."

Nick,

The integrity of a legal process is not only procedural. It also has something to do with representing what laws mean, which revolves around their intent and purpose. So, if you would, please tell us something about the origins and meaning of the birthplace requirement.

The reason I ask: After a whole month of you recycling material you gathered from the farthest reaches of the RW smear machine, you have yet to explain why anyone should take Berg's case seriously.

I am not a mod here, but if it were up to me I would have banned you for deliberate misrepresentation of legal process pertaining to Obama's qualifications, including but not limited to your opening post which referenced a nonexistent webpage featuring a story that had been debunked by Berg himself two days before you posted. I'm astonished by your continued use of this forum to spread rumour and falsehood.

My comments are intended to be helpful and raise your awareness about what your are doing. You are free to use the any way you like, which may include making your case for Internet Martyrdom, which seems to be where you are headed with all this. I don't understand it and maybe you don't either.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick,

The integrity of a legal process is not only procedural. It also has something to do with representing what laws mean, which revolves around their intent and purpose. So, if you would, please tell us something about the origins and meaning of the birthplace requirement.

The reason I ask: After a whole month of you recycling material you gathered from the farthest reaches of the RW smear machine, you have yet to explain why anyone should take Berg's case seriously.

I am not a mod here, but if it were up to me I would have banned you for deliberate misrepresentation of legal process pertaining to Obama's qualifications, including but not limited to your opening post which referenced a nonexistent webpage featuring a story that had been debunked by Berg himself two days before you posted. I'm astonished by your continued use of this forum to spread rumour and falsehood.

My comments are intended to be helpful and raise your awareness about what your are doing. You are free to use the any way you like, which may include making your case for Internet Martyrdom, which seems to be where you are headed with all this. I don't understand it and maybe you don't either.

Netti, Baruagach is just being naive and normal for this cutsey pooh sandbox PC mindset that has become fashionable but corrupts human perspective. You are deep into direct secular manipulation founded on the idea that the end justifies the means. It is far more dangerous IMO and has no appeal for me.

Even the judge did not say that Berg was wrong and that Obama is qualified but rather that he didn't have the right to the truth. No one else apparently does either which means that a citizen does not have the right to know the qualifications of the person they are voting for. Hawaii has sealed the records and only Obama can unseal them. No one can verify Obama's right to the presidency. This is absurd and Berg is right to push it as far as he can for the sake of the constitution. If after the election Obama is exposed as a non citizen and impeached, it may result in some protest riots causing some innocent deaths. IMO, all those that have been stonewalling will be partially responsible..

You will always be wanting to suppress reality for subjective personal aims rather than revealing it to further objective understanding. Unfortunately if those like Baruagach are allowed to suppress legitimate perspectives because they are not right for the la la land sandbox mentality, then, as I've said, continuing has no realistic purpose. I am simply explaining why I must leave so as to avoid any foolish pop psychological explanations. I know of the horrors of selective morality furthered through intimidation and do not seek to support it.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I know of the horrors of selective morality furthered through intimidation and do not seek to support it.

Ironically, all I see in your narrative is pure bias and selectivity.

You seem completely indifferent to even the most basic evidentiary standard for truth. You say you merely pass on what you read, meaning you take no responsibility for truth. How does this enhance "human perspective"?

Silly.

 

[Nick_A]

Ironically, all I see in your narrative is pure bias and selectivity.

You seem completely indifferent to even the most basic evidentiary standard for truth. You say you merely pass on what you read, meaning you take no responsibility for truth. How does this enhance "human perspective"?

Silly.

My guess is that you've been fighting so hard you've never once even considered what makes for an ideal human perspective. Yet you speak of truths without any conception of what it means to put them into a human perspective rather than the perspective of a conditioned automaton.

If you want to know what is silly; that is silly.

 

[seattlegal]

Ironically, all I see in your narrative is pure bias and selectivity.

You seem completely indifferent to even the most basic evidentiary standard for truth. You say you merely pass on what you read, meaning you take no responsibility for truth. How does this enhance "human perspective"?

Silly.

My guess is that you've been fighting so hard you've never once even considered what makes for an ideal human perspective. Yet you speak of truths without any conception of what it means to put them into a human perspective rather than the perspective of a conditioned automaton.

If you want to know what is silly; that is silly.

Quite interesting when you compare it to something Nick_A wrote earlier:

For those that have made the conscious effort to impartially "Know Thyself" it is clear that we are what we do. This means that objectively, all we to is transform substances through our life processes in the same way the rest of organic life on earth does.

 

[Vajradhara]

Closed for Staff Review.

 

[iBrian]

I've just got back so I've not yet had time to go through everything - there are 24 reported posts I'll need to look at, plus a few support issues here.

If I can be allowed a little time to clear up some business issues, I'll then be able to give IO my full attention.

 

[Penguin]

Hi all

I've just learned that my language is not right for the forum. The day I have to lie to further political correctness rather than be truthful in order to reveal its harmful nature is the day it is time to go.

All the best to those I've enjoyed conversing with

Nick

All the best with whatever you do Nick.

Penguin.

 

[iBrian]

Okay, took a look and really there was no need for the tone in the post that was flagged.

As always here, I only ask for a modicum of civility, but all too often people get carried away and fail to restrain themselves. That's why the moderators here need to try and keep a curbs on what is and isn't suitable, and help try and make the place generally accessible.

 

[Nick_A]

OK gang, lets review the dynamics. I received the following email:

Dear Nick_A,

You have received an infraction at Interfaith forums.

Reason: Inappropriate language
-------
Your language is not appropriate for this forum. Please read the code of conduct and follow it.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-...tml#post167060
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dude
It's not uppity women so much as vain women who think that they are Goddess like. If I had a nickel for every time a woman expressed the sentiment that they are like God because they give birth I'd have quite a few nickels.

I don't recall ever hearing a man liken himself to a God other than in jest.

Like I said maybe this whole Goddess worship thing was tried before but it failed because of all the swelled heads of the competing wannabe goddesses.

But it isn't easy to be vain if others are celebrating an attractive intelligent woman. The best way to eliminate the problem and restore personal vanity is by calling them c*nts. This not only furthers personal female vanity but lengthens the male penis.
All the best,
Interfaith forums

I. Brian writes:

Okay, took a look and really there was no need for the tone in the post that was flagged.

As always here, I only ask for a modicum of civility, but all too often people get carried away and fail to restrain themselves. That's why the moderators here need to try and keep a curbs on what is and isn't suitable, and help try and make the place generally accessible.

Bruce asserts a definite infraction worth a point. Of course this infraction doesn't exist as clearly seen since I use the * as required by the rules.

Now Brian refers to the "tone." Read my post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dude
It's not uppity women so much as vain women who think that they are Goddess like. If I had a nickel for every time a woman expressed the sentiment that they are like God because they give birth I'd have quite a few nickels.

I don't recall ever hearing a man liken himself to a God other than in jest.

Like I said maybe this whole Goddess worship thing was tried before but it failed because of all the swelled heads of the competing wannabe goddesses.

But it isn't easy to be vain if others are celebrating an attractive intelligent woman. The best way to eliminate the problem and restore personal vanity is by calling them c*nts. This not only furthers personal female vanity but lengthens the male penis.

This is the basic story of Cinderella. The idea is to destroy quality to create imaginary goddesses. It is the same reason people wear the Sarah Palin is a C*nt tee shirts. These accusations only bolster the imaginary egos of those wearing the shirts by tearing another down. Just look at these puffed up egos.

Gateway Pundit: ANGRY LEFT Protest C*nt Sarah Palin in Philly

An important psychological point is being made that is first asserted to be a violation and now considered expressing the wrong tone. But what is the right tone in expressing this reality of what we are doing and sanctioning on the campaign trail that is ddirectly related to how we make imaginary gods and goddesses or imaginary SELF-IMPORTANCE out of ourselves. I'm sorry but there is no cutsey pooh way to describe how many puff up their egos by tearing down quality.

There is no wrong tone. I'm only expressing the reality of the human condition in the context of the question of the thread. The penis remark was just a friendly add on to what was said earlier by Francis. The only harm of the post is that it reveals something that everyone should be aware of but isn't only because such ideas have been cutsey poohed to death and are now acceptable IRL as forms of politically correct intimidation.

Remember now that no rules were broken. When political correctness rather than standards is permitted to determine what is suitable the only possible results are the horrors of selective morality. This may be your way but it isn't mine.

Can anyone really wonder why the world must hate Christianity when the way of the world is secular manipulation to control selective feelings of prestige?

"Equality is the public recognition, effectively expressed in institutions and manners, of the principle that an equal degree of attention is due to the needs of all human beings." Simone Weil

 

[kiwimac]

An important psychological point is being made that is first asserted to be a violation and now considered expressing the wrong tone. But what is the right tone in expressing this reality of what we are doing and sanctioning on the campaign trail that is directly related to how we make imaginary gods and goddesses or imaginary SELF-IMPORTANCE out of ourselves. I'm sorry but there is no cutsey pooh way to describe how many puff up their egos by tearing down quality.

There is no wrong tone. I'm only expressing the reality of the human condition in the context of the question of the thread. The penis remark was just a friendly add on to what was said earlier by Francis. The only harm of the post is that it reveals something that everyone should be aware of but isn't only because such ideas have been cutsey poohed to death and are now acceptable IRL as forms of politically correct intimidation.

Remember now that no rules were broken. When political correctness rather than standards is permitted to determine what is suitable the only possible results are the horrors of selective morality. This may be your way but it isn't mine.

Can anyone really wonder why the world must hate Christianity when the way of the world is secular manipulation to control selective feelings of prestige?

1: What important psychological point is being made by referring to others in a demeaning way?

2: Are you asserting that Sarah Palin is the quality that is being torn down?

3: How is asking you to express yourself without demeaning someone "politically correct intimidation?"

4: How does this demand to express yourself in a non-demeaning to others manner equate with selective morality?

5: Are you asserting that various Christian groups have never controlled others by demeaning them? *Cough SalemWithcraftTrials Cough*

 

[17th Angel]

lol this is one long good bye, you staying or what?

 

[iBrian]

Come on, Nick A - your point was worth making, but does it really have to be so crudely put? That's what we're dealing with - the way tone expressed it.

Seriously, we're an interfaith discussion group. Think if we were at a university, having a discussion in a seminar among lecturers. Would you really expect to have spoken the post you made?

The infraction issue isn't a biggie - we have it in place to try and help shepherd the community within certain boundaries, and it was just felt something was crossed in this instance. The infraction isn't permanent, expires after 20 days, and is just intended as a way of providing feedback directly, without having to write long PM's asking people who might be expected to know a little better what sort of expectations we have in place.

This place has run a little extreme at times, so the intention is to try and stop things escalating.

It's not about censorship - it's just about trying to calm the level of participation to a basic civil standard that can be suitable for most viewing.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Brian

You come back from Egypt for this? I would make the same statement in front of educated lecturers. It is how you learn their worth. I'll tell you of an incident that happened concerning who I believe to be the greatest man of the twentieth century. I couldn't even mention his name since some thought of him as Jesus Christ and others as the Devil himself. Needless to say I could never mention his name since lord knows what people would come up with. Yet such a discrepancy was essential to avoid associative classification that is the bane of deep philosophical thought as in the study of "being."

Anyhow this truly great human being was in NY at the time and was invited to speak to just such a group who would be university lecturers on the subject of the nature of Man.

As an inwardly developed Man he was also charismatic. He asked those around him to teach him all the modern swear words. Armed with this ammo, he began his talk and gradually spoke in a such way that gradually this group of intellectuals was turned into an orgy. At the completion of the orgy, this truly great man said that now that I've shown you what you are, pay me. After some grumbles he was paid.

He proved in one lecture what these "intellectuals" could not have grasped from a thousand speeches.They were able to acquire understanding from experience.

I was hoping you would have participated in the Politically Correct Speech vs. Right Speech thread. This is as prime example. You are requesting politically correct speech normal for secular Interfaith and I am stressing the right speech necessary to experience the harm we do to ourselves through the acceptance of politically correct ignorance.

Transcendent Interfaith easily admits human frailty since it is a given. It would be hypocritical not to express what is going on now. Secular Interfaith cannot as witnessed since it wants to either hide in the sand or express it in such language that it no longer has meaning. Right speech then has the obligation not to accuse but to admit what is there.

I was hoping one of these mods would have the inner courage to say well maybe we exaggerated. Even that is an admission that politically correct thought is not sacred and doesn't have to be defended at all cost. As I thought, the courage to admit ones wrong is out of the question.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

Political correctness is a way of lying that prevents us from learning from history. It denies the means for experiencing the truth of ourselves as well as collectively experiencing history. A person must decide if they have the courage to disregard politically correct intimidation at the risk of not "fitting in." Simone Weil said we must be willing to "annoy the Great Beast" in pursuit of reality. It is a shame that it takes a young woman to tell a man how he should be willing to act. But if we need Simone's butt kicking, I'll bend over and let the lady do her thing.

 

[iBrian]

Certainly I want to avoid being politically correct - I would much rather political reality.

I'm simply saying that balancing a forum like this is a pretty tough call - I was away a week and a half and came back to find a few ruckuses - it would be hard for me to go back and read every single context of every single issue (there were 24 reported posts and a half-dozen feedback threads I came back to).

So what I'm trying to do now is say, hey, I appreciate your concern, but a mod made a call, and Bruce is an experience mod whose judgement I've come to trust. Whether you feel that call was too harsh or not really won't matter next week because by then, any infraction given should have worn off, and unless you're out to do something really destructive, it doesn't really mean anything personal, permanent, or derogatory. And I'm here now, keeping an eye on the forum, and trying to make sure everything runs pretty smoothly.

Nick, you've been here long enough to see some really wild things happen, but hopefully you've never seen me censor people's opinion, only their behaviour. And I've been pretty forgiving to a lot of the former.

That doesn't mean to say you behaved badly - simply that the use of language in one of your posts was flagged as potentially inappropriate.

Maybe a PM would have been better than a warning, but the intention was that the infraction system would be a simple way to issue nudges to try and cool things a little.

In that regard, all you were given was a nudge, but maybe it could have been better explained.

In the meantime, I really hope we can move forward - you're no spring chicken to the forums, so hopefully you've found some use for it, and also that - most of the time - we try and set the boundaries right. If we got it wrong this once, then next time something comes up, just PM me directly and let me try and resolve the issue.

Being away didn't help matters - allowed them to fester somewhat - so I'll endeavour to do better in future.

 

[Nick_A]

Certainly I want to avoid being politically correct - I would much rather political reality.

I'm simply saying that balancing a forum like this is a pretty tough call - I was away a week and a half and came back to find a few ruckuses - it would be hard for me to go back and read every single context of every single issue (there were 24 reported posts and a half-dozen feedback threads I came back to).

So what I'm trying to do now is say, hey, I appreciate your concern, but a mod made a call, and Bruce is an experience mod whose judgement I've come to trust. Whether you feel that call was too harsh or not really won't matter next week because by then, any infraction given should have worn off, and unless you're out to do something really destructive, it doesn't really mean anything personal, permanent, or derogatory. And I'm here now, keeping an eye on the forum, and trying to make sure everything runs pretty smoothly.

Nick, you've been here long enough to see some really wild things happen, but hopefully you've never seen me censor people's opinion, only their behaviour. And I've been pretty forgiving to a lot of the former.

That doesn't mean to say you behaved badly - simply that the use of language in one of your posts was flagged as potentially inappropriate.

Maybe a PM would have been better than a warning, but the intention was that the infraction system would be a simple way to issue nudges to try and cool things a little.

In that regard, all you were given was a nudge, but maybe it could have been better explained.

In the meantime, I really hope we can move forward - you're no spring chicken to the forums, so hopefully you've found some use for it, and also that - most of the time - we try and set the boundaries right. If we got it wrong this once, then next time something comes up, just PM me directly and let me try and resolve the issue.

Being away didn't help matters - allowed them to fester somewhat - so I'll endeavour to do better in future.

At least you are willing to admit that a PM expressing concern would have been better then a blatant attempt at intimidation. I mean really! Can you imagine if you were pulled over by a cop and given a ticket for potentially speeding. It is the same thing.

My concern is if blatant politically correct intimidation is the wave of the future here which of course makes it impossible for those like me unwilling to be intimidated even at the cost of not fitting in.

Of course the right thing to do would be to remove the point as a token measure. I agree it doesn't mean anything and if I do insult someone intentionally I will do it with a style that will be worth a three pointer. It is not my way which doesn't mean I couldn't do it. But it may create some friction which you don't need and you seem like a good person so why push the issue. It is sufficient for me to know that I've received a point for being potentially inappropriate. Gotta love it. Nothing else need be said. That is the best phrase I've read in a long time. However, you don't seem to me now that you've sold out to the PC intimidation techniques normal for many in secular Interfaith.

The least you can do is sing a chorus of "See the pyramids along the Nile" as compensation.

 

[Vajradhara]

sooo.... you're staying?

metta,

~v