Hi ,i think spitfire has been treated really unfairly ,just because he speaks what he feels is right  hes in the wrong ,spitfire is a very genuine person i for one liked him very much ,what happened to freedom of speech ,i suppose this will be sent to off topics deanna

Come back spitfire  love deanna

If guidance hadn't told me I'm actually helping some people who post or lurk here, I'd quit. I think some people should have already figured out that the energy on this board is different from Linn's, and that different people are drawn here for different reasons, but ultimately the same one - to learn and experience PUL, even if the journey is a little rougher here. If certain people don't like that, there's always Linn's board.  

If this board was like Linn's, it would be redundant and no one would need it.

Patience and kindness - I guess we only have so much. When that runs out, we must ban the heretic. So much for PUL.

People are drawn her for a reason. Certain people especially. And that isn't because they belong on Linn's board.

Rob

What do you mean rob roy i,m confused  deanna

I modified my post. If you're still confused, please feel free to say so again.

Rob

Who is linn rob roy love deanna

wrote on May 14^th, 2006 at 8:08pm:

Who is linn rob roy love deanna

Linn is Linn Conyers, this all started because her services where recomended to someone seeking a medium. Spitfire has had a bad experience with her and very fairly said so. Whether you agree or not with the removal of the thread I personally feel the comments from spitfire which kicked off the decline of the thread were uncalled for, they were nasty and quite hateful.

In my view the removal of the thread was too late to be of use since the thread had started to take an upturn (unless I missed something between the removal and my last view). This has been even further worsened by the moving of spitfires 'goodbye' thread to the off-topic section. But be fair people in this section of the forum it is off-topic, as is this thread lol.

Deanna,

Linn's Forum is here:

http://www.spiritlinnusa.com/linns_forum/Index.php

She is a fine lady.

Love,
Rob

Hi Deanna i totally agree ,spitfire has been treated unfairly,its nice to get his veiws on here .i cant see were hes done anything wrong . hes just honest and stands up for what he thinks about things and theres nothing wrong with that.love and god bless juditha

I don't think the problem is with the message in his posts, he didnt get a good reading from the medium then fair enough, the problem is the malice and venom clearly present in the post, and that is something people shouldn't have to read on a forum like this.

Again, Senote if you read my thread on the deletion of his post, the thread, and the moving of my thread, you can see that the sense of injustice comes about from the unilateral acts by a moderator without a public warning, or explanation afterward when many people, myself included are unhappy.  

I find the silence on the other end, the deletion of an entire thread (with other thoughtful posts separate from the contentious one), the moving of my thread to the off topic forum, all without comment, all without justification to have caused more ill feelings in the name of preventing offensive comments from surfacing.  

You can be angry in a response; you simply should not be threatening, menacing or denigrating.  If you filter out all spontaneous comments, you are left with less "venom," but also less creativity.

Don and Craig had it out once.  They produced one of the most read threads on the forum.  Why?  There were a few insults and barbs thrown around at first.  But cajun cooking burns the tongue and still tastes good!

I still look to Bruce or the moderator to own up to what happened, to respond to the many on the forum still upset by this, to try to post openly and publically when making a move and to make amends.

Matthew

Keep in mind, you are not owed anything on the Conversation Board.  Although registration of the forums has been publicly open, it is still a privately owned website.  Your access and posting privileges (not entitlements or rights) are contingent upon your ability or willingness to follow the posting guidelines.  This has nothing to do with “free speech”.

Bruce has had limited time and spotty e-mail access.  He requested that Spitfire's threads be deleted, after it was brought to his attention through Peer Moderator Input.  The thread was deleted and a warning was given.  Spitfire responded with more of the same, which was deleted, as well.  He is on notice that will be banned the next time he violates the posting guidelines.

As to why he was "singled out", I will not presume to speak for Bruce or any of the Peer Moderators.  My guess is that these messages received sufficient Peer Moderator Input for Bruce to make the decision to delete them and the other messages did not.  So, if you feel there are messages that violate the posting guidelines that were neglected, you can use Peer Moderator Input.  Messages may or may not be moved or deleted, but at least you've used the tool provided for this purpose.

I was told to remove the threads immediately, but I didn't receive details on how it was to be done (whether to post an explanation for all users to read, etc.).  So, I apologize to everyone if I did not exercise the same quality of tact as that of Bruce.

wrote on May 15^th, 2006 at 1:13pm:

Again, Senote if you read my thread on the deletion of his post, the thread, and the moving of my thread, you can see that the sense of injustice comes about from the unilateral acts by a moderator without a public warning, or explanation afterward when many people, myself included are unhappy.

Okay so the removal of the original thread was handled badly, personally I would have removed those original posts of spitfires and left it. As for the other threads I really don't think anyone here needs an explenation as to why clearly off-topic posts were moved to the off-topic forum.


Quote:

I find the silence on the other end, the deletion of an entire thread (with other thoughtful posts separate from the contentious one), the moving of my thread to the off topic forum, all without comment, all without justification to have caused more ill feelings in the name of preventing offensive comments from surfacing.

There were more than one contentious posts in the thread, spitfire posted several times his rather nasty opinion. And the only reason this has degenerated to this state is because spitfire then decided to post his 'goodbye' an act which in 10yrs online I have generally found to be one used to draw attention to oneself rather than as a geniune goodbye. Sorry spitfire thats just experience talking


Quote:

You can be angry in a response; you simply should not be threatening, menacing or denigrating.  If you filter out all spontaneous comments, you are left with less "venom," but also less creativity.

Sorry but I must have been mistaken, I didn't think this forum and others like it were the place for venom and spite, creative or not. What was said could easily have been said in a manner less offensive and nasty.


Quote:

Don and Craig had it out once.  They produced one of the most read threads on the forum.  Why?  There were a few insults and barbs thrown around at first.  But cajun cooking burns the tongue and still tastes good!

I probably would have read it too, which reflects poorly on me. But this forum is not the place for it, or rather any forum except the off-topic forum is not the place for it.


Quote:

I still look to Bruce or the moderator to own up to what happened, to respond to the many on the forum still upset by this, to try to post openly and publically when making a move and to make amends.

Allan has posted his explenation, but I really don't see that either him or Bruce have anything to make amends for except doing there job.

wrote on May 15^th, 2006 at 4:53pm:

There were more than one contentious posts in the thread, spitfire posted several times his rather nasty opinion. And the only reason this has degenerated to this state is because spitfire then decided to post his 'goodbye' an act which in 10yrs online I have generally found to be one used to draw attention to oneself rather than as a geniune goodbye. Sorry spitfire thats just experience talking

I have no regrets, about speaking with abit of spite towards someone who has caused me grief, as for my goodbye post, i ment it, and as soon as these threads die down, i will be gone.. forever, i cant really make that promise as situations change, but it will definetly be for quite some time.


Quote:

Sorry but I must have been mistaken, I didn't think this forum and others like it were the place for venom and spite, creative or not. What was said could easily have been said in a manner less offensive and nasty.

Since you do not know the events which took place, you are not a worthy judge, only myself and linn can do that.


Quote:

I probably would have read it too, which reflects poorly on me. But this forum is not the place for it, or rather any forum except the off-topic forum is not the place for it.

People argue, because people they have different opinions, it's unavoidable.. and whats the point of living if your going to be a robot.

Spitfire come back your stronger than that love deanna

wrote on May 15^th, 2006 at 5:34pm:

Spitfire come back your stronger than that love deanna

Not a question of strength mate, i could argue till the cows come home. But at the end of the day, this is bruce's forum, and it's up to him how he runs it, i am thinking of starting my own forum though, so keep in touch with me via Email, [Yorkshirepuddin@gmail.com] and i'll make sure you get an invite.

wrote on May 15^th, 2006 at 5:28pm:

I have no regrets, about speaking with abit of spite towards someone who has caused me grief, as for my goodbye post, i ment it, and as soon as these threads die down, i will be gone.. forever, i cant really make that promise as situations change, but it will definetly be for quite some time.

Half the time people do intend to leave, the biggest mistake they make is sticking round to see whats said, but i've seen worse. i've seen people fake their own death online.


Quote:

Since you do not know the events which took place, you are not a worthy judge, only myself and linn can do that.

My comment was more concerning the comments place on the forum not the comments themselves or the incidents surrounding them.


Quote:

People argue, because people they have different opinions, it's unavoidable.. and whats the point of living if your going to be a robot.

People do argue, I see it all the time, most of the time its stupid, petty and plain boring, which is why I prefer debate and to stick more to the middle rather than one side or another. Personally I prefer debate to argument, argument is pointless since it always ends up going round and round in circles.

TBH I think what I would have preferred to see from the original post would have been a more constructive and useful assesment of Linn's medium abilities rather than the verbal assasination, given the topic of the post it would have been more useful to the original poster as well.

Hey Spitfire,

Hi from a honorary 'Dingle' (ie, originally from Colne, grew up in Burnley, living in Blackburn. Huh! 'Owd tha' 'appen?).

A ses tha Yorkshire mettle as thee in't tarpits.

My comments are not reflecting upon the spat between yourself and Linn, I am not fully conversant with what has occurred, thus it is merely a whiff only.

My thinking rests upon how you feel in yourself? How you perceive your responses and the result you gained from them? No, I am not thinking in terms of guiltiness, more perhaps, of ruefulness. Very few people have spats with others and gain good feelings from them. If allowed,  these things can rumble on like a belly-ache, serving no other purpose than to signify that something is awry, amiss, and even though one may feel as being the offended party, is it correct to respond with a negativity equal to the original offence?

From reading a few of your posts, you come across as having a more mature intelligence that belies your youth. This is not patronism, merely observation. As Shakespear wrote: "..to itself, youth rebels..", doubly so when it comes attended by such intelligence I see in you. It is the weakest link in your chain of strength. It was also Hamlet's downfall.

Tho' through the thin veneer of confidence you peer, enobled of mind, you lack the wisdom now that you will surely attain later in life. Such legacy is yours, for you will bounce from spat to spat exercising the quickness of your brain, and the cramp inside will rumble on and on.

Jesus said: "..he that hath ears, let him hear..."; it seems fortuitous that I can echo the sentiment to you. Either wisdom, or a search on the internet, may provide you with a meaning for the application of the biblical being's adjuration. Let wisdom's conscience be your guide.

Best wishes owd lad!

wrote on May 15^th, 2006 at 7:27pm:

Half the time people do intend to leave, the biggest mistake they make is sticking round to see whats said, but i've seen worse. i've seen people fake their own death online.

I feel i owe it to those, who i respect to reply to them, it's the only reason im sticking around on these last few threads and not departing now.


Quote:

People do argue, I see it all the time, most of the time its stupid, petty and plain boring, which is why I prefer debate and to stick more to the middle rather than one side or another. Personally I prefer debate to argument, argument is pointless since it always ends up going round and round in circles. TBH I think what I would have preferred to see from the original post would have been a more constructive and useful assesment of Linn's medium abilities rather than the verbal assasination, given the topic of the post it would have been more useful to the original poster as well.

I did state useful facts in my post, such things as - the type of bunce i got was 'are you having problems with a female member of the family' etc.

wrote on May 15^th, 2006 at 8:14pm:

Hey Spitfire, Hi from a honorary 'Dingle' (ie, originally from Colne, grew up in Burnley, living in Blackburn. Huh! 'Owd tha' 'appen?). A ses tha Yorkshire mettle as thee in't tarpits. My comments are not reflecting upon the spat between yourself and Linn, I am not fully conversant with what has occurred, thus it is merely a whiff only. My thinking rests upon how you feel in yourself? How you perceive your responses and the result you gained from them? No, I am not thinking in terms of guiltiness, more perhaps, of ruefulness. Very few people have spats with others and gain good feelings from them. If allowed,  these things can rumble on like a belly-ache, serving no other purpose than to signify that something is awry, amiss, and even though one may feel as being the offended party, is it correct to respond with a negativity equal to the original offence? From reading a few of your posts, you come across as having a more mature intelligence that belies your youth. This is not patronism, merely observation. As Shakespear wrote: "..to itself, youth rebels..", doubly so when it comes attended by such intelligence I see in you. It is the weakest link in your chain of strength. It was also Hamlet's downfall. Tho' through the thin veneer of confidence you peer, enobled of mind, you lack the wisdom now that you will surely attain later in life. Such legacy is yours, for you will bounce from spat to spat exercising the quickness of your brain, and the cramp inside will rumble on and on. Jesus said: "..he that hath ears, let him hear..."; it seems fortuitous that I can echo the sentiment to you. Either wisdom, or a search on the internet, may provide you with a meaning for the application of the biblical being's adjuration. Let wisdom's conscience be your guide. Best wishes owd lad!

It cannie be another child of tha dales?.

I feel good, arguments etc, negative feelings, resentment, all have a golden centre - called pride.. knowing that you have defended what you believe in, no matter the cost - this type of feeling lasts a lifetime and can be recalled with a mere thought. Your are correct, i believe it's justice to respond with equal negativity, if karma exists.. why not dish it out yourself?

You are correct, i could appear rebelious... i can look back 5 years ago, and find some of my own ideas strange.. and ask myself why i did certain things, i think this is just the game of life, to focus back on our actions.. and hopefully learn from them. I hope i never loose the conviction to defend what i believe though.. i would rather be dead, for if we cannot defend our values.. then what does it say about a person, except that they are merely spitting ideas at others, without leading by example.. which in turn makes a persons values worthless.

Cheers.

oh, yeah..how one we are and how glorious it feels.
i personally decided i definitely prefer the venom of a snake to the venom of a flower and i think it is worse to present people venomous flowers than to sleep with snakes..i really can be with chumley and fight all day if necessary :) than to be in the mercy of....some.

"As to why he was "singled out", I will not presume to speak for Bruce or any of the Peer Moderators.  My guess is that these messages received sufficient Peer Moderator Input for Bruce to make the decision to delete them and the other messages did not.  So, if you feel there are messages that violate the posting guidelines that were neglected, you can use Peer Moderator Input.  Messages may or may not be moved or deleted, but at least you've used the tool provided for this purpose."

The singling out was not done by objective moderators but by peers exercising their bias.

Back in the 1830's, a young but very insightful Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out one glaring weakness of democracy in his classical work, Democracy in America. That weakness is Tyranny of the Majority. It seems that some people who think of themselves as intelligent and fair-minded have yet to grasp this most elementary of concepts.

We need OBJECTIVE moderators like well run message boards have, not simply peers who whine and complain because they have a viseral dislike for someone and/or his views and use the rules of the board to rationalize their bias.

If Bruce et al. are unable to moderate fully, appropriate people should be appointed.

Although belonging to a belief system, the following message board is an excellent example of a well-run, well-moderated board:

http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi

That board as been well run since its inception in 1996. Note the right-hand column. Note that each thread has moderators and that these are people of standing among the participants. Members are free to complain to moderators, yet it isn't a popularity contest. We have as good or better people on this board who could do equally well or better.

For a board to run well, it needs to be well moderated.

Rob

Rob,

That is a good point, but I fear you are wasting your breath.  Allan has already stated earlier that since this is a private commercial site, the participants, even such as you and I who contribute actively to the threads and try to help others on the board are "owed nothing," by the moderators or Bruce.

Although we consider this a community, statements like the above, though legally true, serve us notice about the nature of things here.  I see myself as being quite capable of moderating in an unbiased way.  I know that I would publically chime in on the thread, ask that offensive comments be removed, fire a warning shot as it were, and let all see it as it came.  If my input out in the open were ignored, then I would make my cuts, and put up a post explaining briefly what happened.  That is me.  I also would be the first to admit if my judgement were incorrect.

I don't think that we will have much of an impact on this issue with Allan.  I would like to find a similar website to explore consciousness and the afterlife on, though I would miss some of the participants here.  

For now, things continue on, and Ryanparis' thread denigrating women has been left, untouched, in this off topic forum, while Spitfire's "goodbye chaps," thread was deleted by Allan.  Go figure.


Matthew

Doc,

I agree, you would make an excellent moderator. And I agree also with everything else you said.

Rob

Hi Rob Roy AND DocM Iagree with everything you have both written Love and god bless juditha

http://www.seekerscircle.com

There ya go guys, a place where you can speak about anything without fear. ;D

Or check out the forums i just created.
http://s3.phpbbforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=spitfirev2

This is very good Craig. I went there and bookmarked it. Guidance is telling me YES, this is indeed good for Craig.

With Love,
Mairlyn

Hi All,

I have to disagree. Not with the comments, but with the reaction, perhaps fuelled further by Allen's self-justifying comments.

There does seem to be a little hypocrisy evident. If a post denigrating women is allowed, but one that retorts a critical overview of a person's mediumistic calibre is denied public access by an act of censure, one may feel vindicated in crying 'foul'.

What makes a good forum is 'moderation' by a 'moderator'. That is, a person is charged with the responsibility of applying a consistent balance of judgement and fairness, but above all, a wisdom that perceives the effects of their judgement before the judgement is made. A moderator's decision does not affect whom they moderate against, alone, it affects all members.
It is impossible for a moderator, by the very nature of their responsibility, to single out a individual for exceptional attention. When they advise a individual for some transgression, we all take note as if we ourselves, were that individual. The advice (or warning) pertains to everyone at the same time; and by that knowledge, each member (the moderator hopes) regulates themself to act in accordance to the terms and conditions at the 'sign-up'.

However, going off the 'tyrranny of the majority's' comments appearing on this thread, it does seem that the moderator in question has acted unfairly, even though they thought they were acting within the terms of his/her remit. He /she has failed in consistency. Therein lies the imbalance. The application of censure stands out as 'exceptional', and is a grave error of judgement. This is not to suggest that Spitfire was treated exceptionally, but that the moderator has acted exceptionally; and that is beyond the terms of their remit. What is the way forward?

Compromise! The parties involved all played their part. Acknowledgement of this helps the 'hand of friendship' to bridge the gap of indignance and pride. To err is to be human. To forgive, is to be really humane. Not simply towards others, but more importantly, to oneself.

Regards All

spitfire i will keep in touch love deanna

Ah! I see now why the topic on 'women's rights' has not been touched:

1) it is entirely tongue-in-cheek.

2) To treat it censoriously would be to treat it seriously.

3) the moderators actually agree with the comments of the author of the 1st post

What a pickle! Who'd be a moderator?

Regards

" Perhaps all of you do not realize that Bruce has very generously made each and every one of you a moderator."

This is blatanly fallacious and further shows the bias on this board. No one is questioning Bruce's generosity and a thinly disguised guilt trip is uncalled for. And this has nothing to do with how well peer moderation is working (or not).

Rob

I agree, Elysium, however there has been no further communication with either Bruce or the moderator to reach a peace about what happened, and thus feelings are still hurt.  What is sought, is not to restore Craig's angry comments.  What does makes sense is peace, compromise and consistency.  Spitfire's "Goodbye Chaps" thread did not violate the terms of good taste or the forum, and certainly is less offensive than RyanParis' anti-woman thread which can still be found on the off topic forum.  

Peace and compromise do not, in any way invalidate a moderator's job.  Failure to acknowledge what a substantial number of posters are feeling and saying after the deletion of Craig's thread, however, while perfectly legal is unsettling to those of us who see AKF as a community.  

Matthew

wrote on May 16^th, 2006 at 8:04pm:

Failure to acknowledge what a substantial number of posters are feeling and saying after the deletion of Craig's thread, however, while perfectly legal is unsettling to those of us who see AKF as a community.   Matthew

It isn't a substantial number though is it, its half a dozen maybe a few more, and they have all been posting purely because Spitfire posted his 'goodbye'. Its about time this whole mess was buried so things can go back to normal.

That is not true, Senote.  I have had emails from others who have not posted supporting our discussion here.  The number is significant, and at least on our end it is a discussion.  It is true, if the moderators don't care to continue the conversation it will die down.  And a number of us will leave as well.  

We have had many discussions on the board about pure unconditional love, expressing love, and the like.   This is not about one side being "right" or another being wrong.  It is about a number of people (a significant number), who feel hurt by the recent actions of the moderator and want a better solution.  Even if seen from the view of PUL, the cosmoethical action here, as Kyo would call it would be to engage in conversation, make peace, and figure out a public and open way to moderate that would let discussants feel that there was justice and fairness involved.  

M

I might kick myself for even getting involved here, but here goes...(and this is out of kindness, so I hope no one takes this the wrong way)

I appreciate that Bruce has afforded us the peer moderator process.  I admit, I haven't taken advantage of its use as much as I would like to, but it is hard to keep up with all the posts of all the threads on all the forums.  Bruce himself doesn't have time to do all that, and that is why he came up with the peer moderator system.  

It is my opinion that the guidelines of this site and the guidelines of the peer moderator system are clearly outlined.  No trickery or deceit has been put upon anyone here.  

It is my suggestion that if anyone has a problem with anything, that they PM Bruce and then when he is back in town he can address your concerns.  

 Self edited:

What's the point?

self edited again, and the sand blows away

 3 times a charm?

Phoenix, I sure wish I could understand what you are talking about. I believe I get the jist of the basics, but as I am new here I have no idea what "popular people" you speak of.
Based on my limited time on this board I will agree that there definatly needs to be more fairness here. I can plainly see that different people are treated very differently based on their "prominance" and perhaps seniority. My question would be, just because someone has been here a long time and has a million posts, does that make them immune to moderation?
Gretchen
P.S. What exactly is PUL supposed to be?

Hi Justin!  Glad to see you here again.  

Believe it or not, I am as big of a hot-head as the rest of the hot-heads around here.  I get p.o.'d, I get offended, and I don't like everybody, but I do choose my words and my battles carefully.  

From what I understand, Spitfire wasn't banned (not yet, right?) it's just that he crossed the line somewhere so he got a slap on the wrist.  We've seen this with Don too (sorry to bring up your name Don but you know you've crossed the line many times and I'm surprised you haven't been deleted yet-- but maybe not enough folks have complained about you?)

All my above post was about was to defend the fact that Bruce has made the peer moderator system so that when enough people "complain" about a post, something can be done about it.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Bruce agrees with the complaint or that everyone else on this site agrees with it.  

As I said, Bruce isn't here to speak for himself at the moment so a lot of these complaints are kind of pointless as I see it.  If anyone has a gripe with him, they need to wait and talk with him about it.

And, even if there are cliques here, no one is going to get banned or deleted because they are not liked by a few.  I'm sure that spitfire's thread got deleted because it violated guidelines.  Am I right? Or am I wrong?

Personally, I have read plenty of stuff I don't care for, but I also don't complain about it.  I know it will eventually blow over after everyone has said what they want to say and then they all move on to something else.  Happens all the time.  I chose not to engage in every thread, argument, debate, war, or whatever you want to call it.  Sometimes all I do it read.  Sometimes I just ignore it altogether.  

In regards to you Justin, when you were getting bashed, I missed all of it--on this site and on the other.  Just like I missed this whole Spitfire problem.  If his thread had been left on the off-topic forum and it offended me, I just would have ignored it.  I wouldn't even have posted on it.  

I can only speak for myself here in saying that I'm not taking sides on this issue, it's just that it's not affecting me the way it seems to be affecting some people.  But that's the way people are--we want to stick up for those we like/love.  

Hi Gretchen, it stands for "pure unconditional love".

wrote on May 16^th, 2006 at 1:05pm:

Rob, That is a good point, but I fear you are wasting your breath.  Allan has already stated earlier that since this is a private commercial site, the participants, even such as you and I who contribute actively to the threads and try to help others on the board are "owed nothing," by the moderators or Bruce.

i,too think this is an unfortunate explanation.not only for here, for any boards this was going to be an extremely unfortunate explanation.

it is ok to be going..it is not ok to go without saying the reasons of going..because perhaps you ll come back and nothing would have changed..:) and perhaps you d regret not saying it.

humbly..peer moderation is not a good system..especially in a positon where the peer moderation output is putinto the action without intermediate evaluation. in peer moderation system the "keen" party rules the board ..or board bandits in other words..(and those board bandits might really get undercover :) )but instead it ought to be the justice that should rule a board..and unfortunately just people would sense that moderation is not their bussiness and will stay out of the peer moderation system mostly.
you d notice immediatly when somebody is insulting you..a moderation doesnt have this luxury. when moderation does this, it really really looks bad. moderation has to be alert for anybody equally or show this will to a proper degree ..and especially on behalf of the weak and unwanted (by the bandits), the moderation should be alert. because those people should also be welcomed as long as they dont insult people..it is wonderful to have people who dont agree and discuss this openly....i cant spare/save my friends, supporter, customers and let the strangers or non wanted by the bandits to be perished on a board, as the moderation..or it is not a board it is just "lets praise and raise the king" arena. nobody..even the customers wouldnt wanna be in such a place after a while.. is my guess
anyway.. mostly and shortly behind all this moderation should do the work of separating thought critizm from personal insult. thats all.

wrote on May 17^th, 2006 at 12:33am:

Hi Gretchen, it stands for "pure unconditional love".

i think :) she knows that..i guess, she only wanted to know..if...well yes..whats the point?

Vicky,

A thread entitled "Goodbye Chaps," after the initial bad taste posting was completely deleted.  Posts on both threads that were not offensive were completely deleted.  The time, effort and thought placed into those posts were summarily erased.  

I am not saying every moderator is perfect.  However, obviously people are upset by these actions, but they stood by without an adequate explanation or restoration despite the seeming injustice and the outcry.

I believe a public notice either on the original thread or on a new thread would serve the purpose well.  We are not trying to make the moderator "eat crow," so much as to restore the sense of balance and fairness that many of us feel is lost.

Allan posted a note saying that in point of fact, I, you and others are "owed nothing,"by Bruce or the website.  Although legally true, for those of us who see this as a community, I find that to be a very discouraging and polarizing statement.


Matthew

wrote on May 17^th, 2006 at 7:33am:

Vicky, A thread entitled "Goodbye Chaps," after the initial bad taste posting was completely deleted.  Posts on both threads that were not offensive were completely deleted.  The time, effort and thought placed into those posts were summarily erased.   Matthew

Oh I see what you are saying now Matthew.  I don't know why all would be deleted.  Unfortunately I didn't read all or even most of the threads we are talking about.   :-/

Yes he has been treated very unfairly

So much for the people who preach "PUL", what aload of hypocrites these people are

Face it nobody liked Spitfire as he challenged people on this board with a logical, analystic and sometimes cynical approach to the area of the afterlife and nearly always backed up jis claims with a good solid argument.  Yes sometimes he was a bit harsh but arent we all??

And when I was scrolling the off-post forum I saw a thread saying take away womens rights!! My GOD!  why was'nt RyanParris disciplined?  Absolute disgrace.
People like Craig are rare, its a real shame that there are not more people who think like him.

P.S. Spitfire leeme knwo when you get this new froum up and running, I've had enough of this PUL Hypocracy

I know that it's open to all, but how many do you suppose actually participate in peer moderation? Perhaps if it's only a handful then they might want to reconsider having it as an option at all. With everything in life, if certain people believe that they have power over others, they might inadvertantly take advantage.
P.S. I wasn't sure of what PUL stood for, thanks for telling me. I agree though that it doesn't  seem to be happening here.

wrote on May 17^th, 2006 at 9:00am:

Yes he has been treated very unfairly So much for the people who preach "PUL", what aload of hypocrites these people are Face it nobody liked Spitfire as he challenged people on this board with a logical, analystic and sometimes cynical approach to the area of the afterlife and nearly always backed up jis claims with a good solid argument.  Yes sometimes he was a bit harsh but arent we all?? And when I was scrolling the off-post forum I saw a thread saying take away womens rights!! My GOD!  why was'nt RyanParris disciplined?  Absolute disgrace. People like Craig are rare, its a real shame that there are not more people who think like him. P.S. Spitfire leeme knwo when you get this new froum up and running, I've had enough of this PUL Hypocracy

It's up now mate,
http://s3.phpbbforfree.com/forums/spitfirev2.html

Sign up and have some fun.

Quote:

on Today at 7:33am, DocM wrote: A thread entitled "Goodbye Chaps," after the initial bad taste posting was completely deleted.  Posts on both threads that were not offensive were completely deleted.  The time, effort and thought placed into those posts were summarily erased.   Matthew

Matthew, I see what you are saying now, too.  

Yes, in the past Bruce has only removed the offending post and in its place put a notice indicating it's removal and left the non-offending ones on the thread.

Allan helps Bruce with the technical aspects of the forum.  He isn't a "moderator" so to speak.  In his post he also apologized to people if they feel things weren't done in the same way Bruce would have done had he been available to do so.  To me his post sounds like he was handling the technical details as an administrator, not as a moderator.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding that has happened in regards to all of this.  

Kathy

It seems someone is harassing Linn. This strikes at the heart of the spiritual integrity of the Spitfire side of this controversy.

I no longer support Spitfire in this debate, although my views of peer moderation remain.

Rob

Thanks Kathy,

I do understand.  I also know that with Bruce not immediately available, events may occur and decisions be made which may be different than his usual style.  I only wish Allan had written as you just did, possibly on the old thread or in the public forum.  This would have soothed a lot of upset people.  This current thread, noting disatisfaction is now going over 4 pages.  

I suppose for myself, I will wait and see if there is any positive result of this discussion, either from direct communications from Bruce, when he is able, or through an official moderator appointed by him. The "Goodbye Chaps" thread from Spitfire did not violate any forum rules, as much as I could tell, yet it is still gone, including well written posts from several other contributing people.  So far, other than one post from Allan, I have not heard anything more.

Matthew

wrote on May 17^th, 2006 at 2:20pm:

It seems someone is harassing Linn. This strikes at the heart of the spiritual integrity of the Spitfire side of this controversy. I no longer support Spitfire in this debate, although my views of peer moderation remain. Rob

I swear on my eternal soul, ive never sent an email to linn since our session. I do not know who is doing it, but you can check my ip address to clear me from this.

Why would i spend 50 bucks to have a pop, when i could simply send 5,00000 emails to her inbox.. or somthing more damaging.

Maybe it was another customer who felt robbed, for it was definetly not me.

Did anyone on your side of things ring her on the tele, or otherwise communicate with her in a way that's harrassing? Did you have any role whatsoever in this, intentionally, wether directly or indirectly? I'm not accusing you. If I thought YOU did it, I would have said so. BUT, the energy in this is NOT good, and harassment definately crosses a huge line. I want no part of it.

Rob

Matthew,

I think your counsel is the wisest in this issue and I will follow your lead.

Rob

wrote on May 17^th, 2006 at 5:20pm:

Did anyone on your side of things ring her on the tele, or otherwise communicate with her in a way that's harrassing? Did you have any role whatsoever in this, intentionally, wether directly or indirectly? I'm not accusing you. If I thought YOU did it, I would have said so. BUT, the energy in this is NOT good, and harassment definately crosses a huge line. I want no part of it. Rob

I have no idea, no one has said anything to me indicating they would harrass linn via telephone or via private messanger.., from what i gather from linns post, it sounds like someone acused her of something during a yahoo session... it could be, just another person who was complaining and due to the situation at this time, they got connected to me, or it could be someone acting in my intrests, yet not told me. I personally had nothing to do with the transgression with linn, and if it was indeed via yahoo messanger, and not telephone i will give my IP address over, so you can make sure im not the culprit. Or it could be linn's revenge for being degraded recently... however if she is really being harrassed, more details are required of how, and when.

wrote on May 17^th, 2006 at 5:32pm:

i will give my IP address over

While I personally don't think you have anything to do with whatever has happened, I feel I should point out that masking your IP is very simple to do and since your in England your IP is very likely dynamic anyway and not fixed.

Senote,

Craig is not like that.  This is why he chose the name Spitfire, I fancy.  He is an in-your-face boxer/bulldog, take your pic.  He has support here, in a large part because what you see/hear is what you get.


M

 I missed most of this story and don't know details
 
 I know that
 none of us dance alone

 the physics of of the thing is that there
 aren't just two sides, ever

 reality always has more dimensions

 we don't exist except as relationship

 it's a hand getting angry at a foot
 forgetting it's one body

 Spitfire being treated unfairly?

 Spits is dancing! He's not a victim!

 Linn a victim! Make me laugh!
 She's an eternal being!
 
 I read Craig's post and it's obvious he's sincere;
 he doesn't have anything to do with
 the harassment described. That's plain to me.

 the I-Ching often consuls "No Blame"

 that doesn't mean to throw up your hands and go
"oh well"

 it means there are no sides or corners to the thing
 
 it's a sphere

 if you look for a right side or a wrong side
 you have to hallucinate them
 because it's a sphere and there are no corners

 "No Blame" means to stop hallucinating

  It's not forgiveness (nothing to forgive)

  It's a shift in perception
 
  the big view

  yeah! where you don't exist except as relationship
 
  TALK FROM THERE

  TALK FROM THAT PLACE


   
 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 



 


 

 

 

wow it is amazing somebody harrassing somebody else, somewhere else  and we are here discussing it all over? we wouldnt be discussing such a thing when somebody did this so somebody else on the board and before everybody's eyes, on some particular occasions..i could bet on that, again. it is great to have friends, right? *wink*wink*


wrote on May 15^th, 2006 at 4:35pm:

Keep in mind, you are not owed anything on the Conversation Board.

yes, it is obvious we are owed nothing, arent we?..how about the particular some? who doesnt even have to speak for themselves..and yet can make things done? sucks, i think.

wrote on May 17^th, 2006 at 6:45pm:

While I personally don't think you have anything to do with whatever has happened, I feel I should point out that masking your IP is very simple to do and since your in England your IP is very likely dynamic anyway and not fixed.

Your ip address is tailored to your location, and unless your a computer genius - the location part of your ip is not changable.. if you traced my ip address you would see, i live in kingston upon hull, in yorkshire.. and unless i traveled to another city, far far away, i could not change this, the only part that changes is the last digits.

Hi Tim,

I like your post.  On a metaphysical level, you are, of course correct.  However, we have to be part of the inter-relationship in physical reality, and that means, I have found to have and express opinions.  

I had a similar discussion with Kyo on another thread.  Right/wrong,  good/evil, light/dark stuff.  There is a strong argument that if we are all one, that none of these distinctions exist.  Unfortunately, that can lead you to the idea that nothing matters but simply being.  This may be a profound realization, however, we are here, in this C1 plane, maybe as actors on a stage, but we all play our parts.  The distinctions of right and wrong, good and evil are important while we are on this stage, whether they are illusory on a grander scheme or not.

I am reminded again of the Bhagavad Gita, where the lord Krishna comes down to the warrior Arjuna who is about to engage in a mighty battle, and is losing heart.  Why go through with it if thousands of friends and family will die, and if we are all part of the unity?  The Gita is thus a dialogue between the two about the reason for action/duty.  In essence, Krishna urges him to go on to the battle, to act out his part even if there are higher planes of existence, even if devastation will result.

The realization of unity with God is, perhaps our ultimate goal.  If we take a look at our current thoughts and relationships, we were not meant to shirk our part in the drama of life while we go on this quest.  Life is a participation sport, so to speak, and this realization has taken me quite a bit of time.  

So I think your post is true, and lends a certain overall perspective to the hurt feelings and trouble that has occured.  Nevertheless, I plan to continue to put forth my feelings on what happened and play my role in the hopes that I will get a positive response from Bruce and Allan that can heal the board.


Best to you,

Matthew

Hi Tim,

A couple of points:

Quote: "It means there are no sides or corners to the thing, it's a sphere."

If a thing has a shape, then it will always have a 'inner' and 'outer', and by the shape, both are connected.
Cognizance is what is required. Stillness is connected to motion, interconnectively described by perspective. Equally so, 'silence' and 'sound'; as well as 'here' and 'there' . These are not illusions or hallucinations, they are quite real to perspective.
Relative perspective of one, alludes to a perspective of the other. The illusion is the shape, and once one becomes cognizant of this, the shape disappears and all that is left is a cognizance of 'interconnection'.

Regards

yes, it is a sphere and there are no corners..the right and wrong are hallucinations and illusions..so let the niggers be niggers untill you are born as a black person..let the jews be terminated in gas rooms untill you are born a nazi to find a better way to kill...let the place be the place where people owe each other nothing ..not even a genunie smile or a sincere thought. let there us be the one with a head and toe while the head cant feel the pain of the toe..let us be the brothers and sisters who is talking cheap to each other..and pls after all,  let there be love!
is this the catfight?..well no,  this is the just the life itself that people devastate and offer to each other in kind manners. i too will one day start a fire , play and fake and will sit back and relax and enjoy the sight of people burning just to warm me up..i too would then turn my head back and find a fancy relaxing thought and that day, i guess i ll begin to believe that we are one.

i have seen people enough mostly around here who is playing the three monkey when somebody is bleeding before their eyes under their own rule. "what is this? what is the damage?"..say.. they just dont understand.yet again this time somebody says something about their own self or about the self of a friend..far from causing a wound..although they are immune to the damage although they are the king of their place they rush and hurry and take action and nobody is even have to explain themselves..ok, in this small exapmle, i really would like to have a compromise..could it be that perhaps we are ONE with SOME and NOT so with some others? i just dont bother with this..i bother with the blinded sense in people when they preach about love and being one. so i ask them..which ONE do you mean?

but it is really a joke, u see. anybody cant be serious talking among people who are so friendly only outside and under a rule who says we owe you nothing.

it has been six years..despite all those warnings given to me about the place and the purpose of it only now i slowly am begining to realize that really here is a big mistake going on.i have not been to the other side, i have not met jesus, i have not drown in lights of love but i do claim people owe each other and every other. people owe each other to-the-face sincerity, people owe each other the truth the best they understand and perceive, people owe each other the care..i see none here..i see so very strange things that i have not seen someplace else..i see people hating their own daughter and sitting here and preaching love ..i see people whispering words of ..-i dont know what- inside and yet faking a gigling smiley. this place is almost a hell where living ghosts are  trapped and you are talking about rescuing the actual dead man and lifting them to heavens? impossible. so blinded to the living, cant do a thing about the dead, except perhaps burying it.

how many chances you d give to a person about a mistake that is goin on? one million? two billions? in how many of them they would seriously think about  correcting them? in none probably..yet again wouldnt you give one another chance? yes, you would..but in among those time, in all that repeating mistakes all the system and all the current could have shifted to another side..yet again you would give that other chance after the billionth and.. you d wait..until the eternity, you d wait so the invidual mistake is corrected..small are chances but you'd wait, wouldnt you?

whatever.. i dont know about you but i think i would..i think, i have to. because it is gotto be a rule or something.

Hi Augo,

From my point of view there is no politics at all. This thread is merely a response to deletions of other entire threads and posts, separate from a single contentious perhaps inappropriate single post from Craig.  This is not a question of ego, so much as a sense of fairness and balance.  And communication.
M

Hi Matt,

   What I'm saying is that we have more choices than a "either/or"  stance might imply. It's not that we're either holding this end of the stick or that one. There are more possibilities.

I think we fixate viewpoints by putting conditions on them to hold them in place. Unconditional doesn't mean we don't make choices. But it means you see many viewpoints, the fluidity...  I think that's great for free will, the more choices we have.

Ya know, I was thinking of the disagreement 'tween Linn & Craig more than issue of moderation and censorship...  My main thing was to say that I believe Craig's response to accusations of harassment in this thread and I ain't taking a side by saying that. And I'm saying we have more choices than we sometimes realise, we're all co-creators. Things aren't fixed in stone. It can take just one person to make a shift in viewpoint and change the whole equation.

Hey Elysiumfire,

  Don't you love how all metaphors self-destruct?

  I do!

       Tim ( I'd rather juggle than use metaphors)  F.

  oh, anyone interested in finding personal proof of the interdependence of all things? one formula is this: turn the light around and look inwards. trace your attention back to it's source. the proof is there...

wrote on May 18^th, 2006 at 3:50am:

Your ip address is tailored to your location, and unless your a computer genius - the location part of your ip is not changable.. if you traced my ip address you would see, i live in kingston upon hull, in yorkshire.. and unless i traveled to another city, far far away, i could not change this, the only part that changes is the last digits.

If memory serves me correctly in Hull your limited in your telecomes provider and ISP, I'm not going to go giving out details but its very easy to change your IP to one totally different, there are programs that can do it for you, but it can actually be done very easily in IE. Also though I doubt this applies to you, but for people on NTL a lot of websites dont pick up their actual IP but the IP of their local cache server. As I said in my original post I dont think you did it at all, im just correcting the technical aspects.

Leave spitfire alone ,just because he says his opinions what he truly believes hes being hounded for it ,i dont know what went on between spitfire and linn and i dont want to know because it is spitfires buisness and nobody elses ,spitfire is a very intelligent ,genuine person ,that ryans about womens rights was worser than anything spitfire wrote ,hes the one who should have been told off not spitfire ,spitfire is one of the best as far as i,m concerned love deanna

Hi I agree with everything deanna has wrote here and i really, like deanna miss spitfire on here ,it just wont be the same on here without him ,i liked to read what he wrote because all he was doing was the same as the rest of us saying what he truly thinks and beleives and he should be back on here because he had so many interesting things to say  and i miss it .Love and god bless juditha . come back spitfire theres so many of us that miss you