Guest guest Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 not to be stupid, but whats that supposed to mean??? ee --- "geezomoo <geezomoo" <geezomoo wrote: > Devi_Bhakta, > > You is kind. It is my believe you bans this woman > in group. > Tatvamsi warn you and see what happens. > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 i am so sorry for the two of you...thats not something i imagine would be an easy thing to do. im sorry it came to that.. from what youtold us i would just as soon not have a person like that on the list at all.. it hurts the whole cause of this list, and all of the ones like it. im glad to be here and i dont want to sound harsh, but shouldnt every one given the oppertunity to share in a conversation with people who are good and knowledgeable and thoughtful and kind be thankful to be part of the conversation as well?? ee --- "Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta wrote: > Over the past few days, Shakti Sadhana's current > moderators -- > myself, Nora and Kochu -- met several times and > finally arrived at a > most difficult decision: Any and all posts by > adi_shakthi16 or any of > her avatars (asimhavahini, vinatha kumar, > dkny1, geetangali ... > and numerous others) will not be posted in Shakti > Sadhana. Those of > you who enjoy this person's posts can easily find > them elsewhere; she > posts prolifically in many . > > I stress that this person has not been banned. She > is free to join > the Group as adi_shakthi16, and to read (and > hopefully benefit from) > the posts of our other members. But she herself will > not be allowed > to post under any name. > > Our decision may come as a surprise to some, but it > was anything but > rash and hasty: Nearly two years ago, when Nora and > I first became > moderators at the then-new Shakti Sadhana club, the > moderators of a > number of other Hinduism clubs and groups warned us > of an asuric > presence, a person who was then using the ID, > "gypsyqueenb" -- > the very same person who is now best known as > adi_shakthi16. > > The more experienced moderators at these older > Hinduism groups > advised us to ban this person at the outset, not to > allow her to post > a single note in Shakti Sadhana. Nora and I > disagreed: Everyone makes > mistakes, we argued. Everyone has the right to grow > and change. Until > she attacks us personally, we will not ban her > merely because she has > attacked others in the past. > > And so I wrote adi_shakthi16 a note, introducing > myself. We talked > about music, art, family. Nora did the same. For a > while, our > strategy seemed to be working. As many of you know, > adi_shakthi16 can > be a most friendly and appealing personality when it > suits her > purposes: That is why is was so hard for us to > believe that her aims > were entirely negative; and why many of you will > find even this > message hard to believe. So taken in were we, that > we briefly invited > adi_shakthi16 to act as a junior moderator (i.e. > with limited ability > to ban members, approve posts, etc.) She soon > demanded greater power. > We said, "wait a bit." But she quit, and the attacks > began. Not > immediately, but by fits and starts, constantly > growing in intensity. > > Nora took the brunt of it; I got the same sort of > thing to a lesser > degree -- adi's IM's and e-mails (all of which Nora > saved and > forwarded to ) are a catalogue of hate -- she > attacked us on the > basis of race, ethnicity, religion and spiritual > beliefs, family > background, profession, errors we'd made in learning > to be > moderators, even our children. Her communications > were nothing short > of breathtaking in their viciousness. This was, it > seems, adi's > reward for our naive attempts at friendship and > trust. > > Nora and I stuck to our guns for a while, and > refused to permanently > ban her just the same -- for nearly two years we > held out. Not that > we never wavered: I'd recommend banning adi after a > particularly > vicious attack on me, and Nora would calm me down. > Nora would > recommend banning when adi attacked her, and then I > would be the one > advising patience. Throughout, adi tried to play us > one against the > other: When Nora finally cut off adi's posting > privileges, adi wrote > to me, asking me to change Nora's settings. I asked > adi to simply > tone down a bit and use a new ID that wasn't banned > -- that was the > birth of asimhavahini. > > The final straw came when adi began an organized > attempt to push > people away from Shakti Sadhana. Writing from the > Group's e-mail > function or by messenger to many or most > active members of the > Group, she smeared Nora and I to anyone who would > listen to her, > including many of our close and valued friends. Some > of them took her > advice, and left us. Others forwarded her mail to > us, to warn us > about what she was up to. > > adi_shakthi16 was insidiously selective in her > attacks: She tended to > focus on our most serious and accomplished members; > people whom she > knew we liked and enjoyed communicating with. In > other words, the > people whose departure she knew would most hurt our > feelings and > discourage me. And yes, she cost me some of these > valued friendships. > But others stayed and encouraged me to hang in > there. At the same > time, Nora was receiving the same sorts of > "collateral attacks," > worse than I endured, and adi's games cost her many > friends as well. > Kochu, our newest moderator, also found himself the > subject of her > maneuvers in recent weeks. > > The attacks themselves are not the problem: We are > all adults; we can > take it. The problem is the constant distraction > from our avowed > purpose at Shakti Sadhana -- we, the moderators, are > busy people with > busy lives, and we suspect that most of our members > are as well. We > simply do not have the time to engage in an > unending, petty soap > opera of personal attacks and vendettas. It is not > good for the > Group, for its members -- it is not good for > spiritual advancement or > sadhana of any kind. > > So: How to express my feelings, now that we have > finally thrown up > and hands and decided to ban her? I cannot express > it better than Uma > ( ID tatwamasi) did in July of 2001, at post > #1372 at the > Spiritual Ecstacy and Meditation Group, which is > still one of the > largest Hinduism Groups. Tatwamasi, as a > moderator -- who had > endured harsh, sustained personal attacks by adi > long before Shakti > Sadhana even existed -- fielded the following post > (#1371) from > another SEM member who was also being attacked by > adi: > > "This woman ... is following me from club to club. > She is trying to > harass others and using my name as the scapegoat. I > admit I once believed her lies concerning [the > Groups] > and Spiritual Ecstasy And Meditation. I was wrong. > ... I've since > learned that she has harassed clubs from as far back > as Summer of > last year. She picks good clubs. I am not affiliated > with this woman." > > To illustrate that his experience is nothing new, > the member then > quotes from another Group ("World of Dhayana, Post # > 3022") from the > year 2000 to adi_shakthi16 (then gypsyqueenb): "Why > do you use > multiple ID's? It is karma that is catching up with > you. ... Please > stay away from me you have given me a bad name. I > was wrong to > believe your earlier message about those two clubs. > It is my fault > for doing so. That is the only thing I am guilty of. > Stop following > me from club to club also Gypsy." > === message truncated === Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 I think more than enough chance was given. The whole thing was so tiring. here are people wanting to chat on Sadhana and here is a person who goes ad nauseum on the abilities and disabilities of individuals and filling pages with cut and paste (just giving the links would have been great). It is a good thing to collate information. But when you force it down the throat of others it is bad. Why go after others' past, real or imagined? Sugar coating poison; and generally taking us far from the very intent and purpose of the group. I even received IMs asking me to quit when I was just a member. What I saw was a person wanting attention and love. Actually starving for that. Any one talks about some subject immediately results in a search of material on that on the net, the cutting and pasting as part of her experience. Misleading. I kept quiet. I wanted to shower love. I Left it to the other moderators. I Didn’t want to be bogged down in personalities. But as time went by I also realised there is unending hostility to some moderator and no amount of subtle hints was having any effects. We are a group and we need to move forward. When we are about to move forward asuric forces cause blocks and distractions. Natural. We tried to work round that. But when the moderators are being distracted continuously, we had to act. The mail seems to have brought a spate of hate mail all from the same IP address with different names. We received support mail too. From different IPs. I feel we will ignore all the abuse and praise and do what we must. Let me make it clear that the moderator is no superior being but one amongst the members who just assists in the management of the group. We are not being judgmental. But sometimes surgery will become necessary. The same surgery, I am told was done in many groups against the SAME infection. Some surgeries starting long before Shakthi Sadhana was formed. The Group will go on and fulfill its mission whatever others do if it is Devi’s will. lets treat the subject as closed ee cummings <gomziesgrrl wrote: i am so sorry for the two of you...thats not something i imagine would be an easy thing to do. im sorry it came to that.. from what youtold us i would just as soon not have a person like that on the list at all.. it hurts the whole cause of this list, and all of the ones like it. im glad to be here and i dont want to sound harsh, but shouldnt every one given the oppertunity to share in a conversation with people who are good and knowledgeable and thoughtful and kind be thankful to be part of the conversation as well?? ee --- "Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta wrote: > Over the past few days, Shakti Sadhana's current > moderators -- > myself, Nora and Kochu -- met several times and > finally arrived at a > most difficult decision: Any and all posts by > adi_shakthi16 or any of > her avatars (asimhavahini, vinatha kumar, > dkny1, geetangali ... > and numerous others) will not be posted in Shakti > Sadhana. Those of > you who enjoy this person's posts can easily find > them elsewhere; she > posts prolifically in many . > > I stress that this person has not been banned. She > is free to join > the Group as adi_shakthi16, and to read (and > hopefully benefit from) > the posts of our other members. But she herself will > not be allowed > to post under any name. > > Our decision may come as a surprise to some, but it > was anything but > rash and hasty: Nearly two years ago, when Nora and > I first became > moderators at the then-new Shakti Sadhana club, the > moderators of a > number of other Hinduism clubs and groups warned us > of an asuric > presence, a person who was then using the ID, > "gypsyqueenb" -- > the very same person who is now best known as > adi_shakthi16. > > The more experienced moderators at these older > Hinduism groups > advised us to ban this person at the outset, not to > allow her to post > a single note in Shakti Sadhana. Nora and I > disagreed: Everyone makes > mistakes, we argued. Everyone has the right to grow > and change. Until > she attacks us personally, we will not ban her > merely because she has > attacked others in the past. > > And so I wrote adi_shakthi16 a note, introducing > myself. We talked > about music, art, family. Nora did the same. For a > while, our > strategy seemed to be working. As many of you know, > adi_shakthi16 can > be a most friendly and appealing personality when it > suits her > purposes: That is why is was so hard for us to > believe that her aims > were entirely negative; and why many of you will > find even this > message hard to believe. So taken in were we, that > we briefly invited > adi_shakthi16 to act as a junior moderator (i.e. > with limited ability > to ban members, approve posts, etc.) She soon > demanded greater power. > We said, "wait a bit." But she quit, and the attacks > began. Not > immediately, but by fits and starts, constantly > growing in intensity. > > Nora took the brunt of it; I got the same sort of > thing to a lesser > degree -- adi's IM's and e-mails (all of which Nora > saved and > forwarded to ) are a catalogue of hate -- she > attacked us on the > basis of race, ethnicity, religion and spiritual > beliefs, family > background, profession, errors we'd made in learning > to be > moderators, even our children. Her communications > were nothing short > of breathtaking in their viciousness. This was, it > seems, adi's > reward for our naive attempts at friendship and > trust. > > Nora and I stuck to our guns for a while, and > refused to permanently > ban her just the same -- for nearly two years we > held out. Not that > we never wavered: I'd recommend banning adi after a > particularly > vicious attack on me, and Nora would calm me down. > Nora would > recommend banning when adi attacked her, and then I > would be the one > advising patience. Throughout, adi tried to play us > one against the > other: When Nora finally cut off adi's posting > privileges, adi wrote > to me, asking me to change Nora's settings. I asked > adi to simply > tone down a bit and use a new ID that wasn't banned > -- that was the > birth of asimhavahini. > > The final straw came when adi began an organized > attempt to push > people away from Shakti Sadhana. Writing from the > Group's e-mail > function or by messenger to many or most > active members of the > Group, she smeared Nora and I to anyone who would > listen to her, > including many of our close and valued friends. Some > of them took her > advice, and left us. Others forwarded her mail to > us, to warn us > about what she was up to. > > adi_shakthi16 was insidiously selective in her > attacks: She tended to > focus on our most serious and accomplished members; > people whom she > knew we liked and enjoyed communicating with. In > other words, the > people whose departure she knew would most hurt our > feelings and > discourage me. And yes, she cost me some of these > valued friendships. > But others stayed and encouraged me to hang in > there. At the same > time, Nora was receiving the same sorts of > "collateral attacks," > worse than I endured, and adi's games cost her many > friends as well. > Kochu, our newest moderator, also found himself the > subject of her > maneuvers in recent weeks. > > The attacks themselves are not the problem: We are > all adults; we can > take it. The problem is the constant distraction > from our avowed > purpose at Shakti Sadhana -- we, the moderators, are > busy people with > busy lives, and we suspect that most of our members > are as well. We > simply do not have the time to engage in an > unending, petty soap > opera of personal attacks and vendettas. It is not > good for the > Group, for its members -- it is not good for > spiritual advancement or > sadhana of any kind. > > So: How to express my feelings, now that we have > finally thrown up > and hands and decided to ban her? I cannot express > it better than Uma > ( ID tatwamasi) did in July of 2001, at post > #1372 at the > Spiritual Ecstacy and Meditation Group, which is > still one of the > largest Hinduism Groups. Tatwamasi, as a > moderator -- who had > endured harsh, sustained personal attacks by adi > long before Shakti > Sadhana even existed -- fielded the following post > (#1371) from > another SEM member who was also being attacked by > adi: > > "This woman ... is following me from club to club. > She is trying to > harass others and using my name as the scapegoat. I > admit I once believed her lies concerning [the > Groups] > and Spiritual Ecstasy And Meditation. I was wrong. > ... I've since > learned that she has harassed clubs from as far back > as Summer of > last year. She picks good clubs. I am not affiliated > with this woman." > > To illustrate that his experience is nothing new, > the member then > quotes from another Group ("World of Dhayana, Post # > 3022") from the > year 2000 to adi_shakthi16 (then gypsyqueenb): "Why > do you use > multiple ID's? It is karma that is catching up with > you. ... Please > stay away from me you have given me a bad name. I > was wrong to > believe your earlier message about those two clubs. > It is my fault > for doing so. That is the only thing I am guilty of. > Stop following > me from club to club also Gypsy." > === message truncated === Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Devi Bhakta wrote: > Over the past few days, Shakti Sadhana's current moderators -- > myself, Nora and Kochu -- met several times and finally arrived at a > most difficult decision: Any and all posts by adi_shakthi16 or any of > her avatars (asimhavahini, vinatha kumar, dkny1, geetangali ... > and numerous others) will not be posted in Shakti Sadhana. Those of > you who enjoy this person's posts can easily find them elsewhere; she > posts prolifically in many . > > I stress that this person has not been banned. She is free to join > the Group as adi_shakthi16, and to read (and hopefully benefit from) > the posts of our other members. But she herself will not be allowed > to post under any name. A very big step for one person. In the interests of freedom, could I suggest that she be put in moderated status and her posts be allowed through if they are deemed 'appropriate' for the list, rather than refusing her all right to a voice? This has worked quite well for me on some of my lists. Remember that divine providence uses all tools at hand. Blessings, and my best wishes to the moderators, Ralf .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 That’s how she was. But she has been sending IMs and mails to everyone berating moderators (except me). I was keeping away from the controversy because I noticed that the person is a lonely one seeking love and recognition which she cannot get in real life. This I noticed very early in my soujourn here. When she had a tiff with Nora she sent me an IM suggesting that I leave. I ignored it. then it was very nice IMs with a lot of innuendos. Then she deleted me from Brahmanshakthi and then immediatly asking me why I quit. I said i did not and he said it must be net glich and then said she is sending an invite. It never came. It was as if saying that u obey me or else... *Smile*. Anyway these groups are not the be all and end all for me. I was invited just like u and I joined. For certain reasons I was made a moderator. After Devi_bhaktha's post and my addendum it was a virtual siege of Harangue raising all sorts of allegations at me in my IM. Fed up I have just deleted her from my IM. This seems to have been the pattern as mentioned in DB's message. Only last week she said "I am her favorite" and that I should be a good influence on other moderators!! I just smiled and was non committal. She has now banned me from the US. (Being in Washington she must be residing in White House)*smile*. She says I will not get a "passport" to US. Probably she meant "visa". I do not need one though. Then I am bad, I seem to have sexually abused some small girl on IM. (Who when what? unknown!!). What a dirty old man I must be!! Then a lot of other things. As a sadhaka I smiled and did not answer this harangue. It seems to have stopped (for now at least.) The whole problem seems to be hunger for love, affection and recognition. That’s how I see it. We tried to give that. But personal animosities were creating the problem and the group posting was getting affected. Instead of concentrating on Sadhana we were forced to waste time on petty complaints day in and day out!! There was no other go. In all probability you will also start getting mails saying what bad people we are *smile*. Let this chapter end and lets concentrate on Sadhana Kochu Ralf <ralf wrote: Devi Bhakta wrote: > Over the past few days, Shakti Sadhana's current moderators -- > myself, Nora and Kochu -- met several times and finally arrived at a > most difficult decision: Any and all posts by adi_shakthi16 or any of > her avatars (asimhavahini, vinatha kumar, dkny1, geetangali ... > and numerous others) will not be posted in Shakti Sadhana. Those of > you who enjoy this person's posts can easily find them elsewhere; she > posts prolifically in many . > > I stress that this person has not been banned. She is free to join > the Group as adi_shakthi16, and to read (and hopefully benefit from) > the posts of our other members. But she herself will not be allowed > to post under any name. A very big step for one person. In the interests of freedom, could I suggest that she be put in moderated status and her posts be allowed through if they are deemed 'appropriate' for the list, rather than refusing her all right to a voice? This has worked quite well for me on some of my lists. Remember that divine providence uses all tools at hand. Blessings, and my best wishes to the moderators, Ralf .. thats OK but Panchadashi is better Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.