Guest guest Posted December 30, 2003 Report Share Posted December 30, 2003 My sincere apologies. I will choose my words more wisely and avoid words, and indeed subjects, which can be potentially rousing, (In retrospect, that Srila Prabhupada was not 'uncompromising' when it came to practical matters, was the quality I was trying to describe). I certainly agree that to maintain a focused and vital conference, where all participants feel welcome to express and exchange ideas, we need to follow these points as Mother Chayadevi has listed. Thank you for the guidance. YS, Gopal In a message dated 12/29/2003 8:30:47 AM Central Standard Time, ISCOWP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes: Although the dictionary meaning of the word fanatic is fine we don't want to use that word for Prabhupada. It is a mind bite word. It brings to mind those people and organizations that had mass suicides with thier leaders organizing it, etc. etc. I organized this conference in 1993 for the pupose of sharing knowledge of a practical sort. Also it is very nice to share stories and feelings pertaining to the service of cows and the land. Sometimes we get into political issues concerning these subjects but we should keep that at a minimum unless we have a plan how to change things. In other words I don't want words or language being used that can be easily misinterpreted and creates a "mind bite" and that eventually creates bickering amongst the members of this conference. Don't we already have enough of that in ISKCON and the rest of the devotee world? There are so many platforms where this can go on, but not in the cow conference. This conference was highly active since 1993 to about 2001. Then somone came on the conference who spewed language like this. Eventually, since I allowed him to go on, other devotees requested to get off the conference because it had developed a lot of bickering. I finally took him off the conference but it was too late. This is the first time there has been stong activity in a long time and I don't want the same thing to happen and I don't want to have to remove anyone. So. I am addressing the issue early when it is not yet serious. So rules for the conference for everyone: 1) Explain yourself clearly, try not to resort to mind bites that will most often get an emotional response 2) Be sensitive that the members of this conference have viewpoints that differ, often greatly. So when presenting something keep in mind that there are those who will not agree intially. Think that if you present this logically and in a passive voice, perhaps they will see the substantiailty of your points instead of taking offense. I have also been guilty of speaking "emotive" in the past and will also try to do better. In an e-mail conference setting it can all be misinterpreted and we need to be more careful. Your servant, Chayadevi Visit us at: www.iscowp.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 >But you should consider the fact that when I saw someone say he wasn't a fanatic.....(" not strict"... by my understanding) Madhusudana also feels so standing next to me..( and is the context to which people refer to most...( not strict)... THat was a mind bite for me and I replied with the proper English term which is what is real and not serviced to anyones conformed belief of the word which not everyone is influenced... Sorry Billy Bob, "fanatic" has a very negative connotation to most primary English speakers. >This is quite a sting you've given me and I didn't appreciate it.. If you think that was a sting, you are a light weight. The annoying kind that likes to dish it out but can't take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 [This message was in HTML format] >"Mark Middle Mountain" >"Mark Middle Mountain" >"Cow (Protection and related issues)" >Re: rules for this conference >Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:24 -0500 > > >But you should consider the fact that when I saw someone say he wasn't a >fanatic.....(" not strict"... by my understanding) Madhusudana also feels so >standing next to me..( and is the context to which people refer to >most...( not strict)... THat was a mind bite for me and I replied with the >proper English term which is what is real and not serviced to anyones >conformed belief of the word which not everyone is influenced... > >Sorry Billy Bob, "fanatic" has a very negative connotation to most primary >English speakers. > Sorry Middle mount. I'm sure you're waiting for this one... I'm pretty sure this is based on your opinion and not some authorized consensus.... Seeing you know how to dig for reaction and as far as dishing out hold the largest pot... My primary language is English and as far as the the meaning of "fanatic" goes I've always known it as possitive.. or beyond normal in the godly sense.. I only recently looked it up in the dictionary and it holds true.. I will place it again for your benefit and any other of your unknowing assosiates that are confused... (Fanatic-- Inspired by a diety; Marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion).. This is from America's #1 paperback dictonary... From which I'm sure alot, if not "most" of primary English speakers find the meanings of words they don't know... hint...... > >This is quite a sting you've given me and I didn't appreciate it.. > >If you think that was a sting, you are a light weight. The annoying kind >that likes to dish it out but can't take it. > Not like a bee sting, like a friend who stabbed you in the back.. If you can relate.. Maybe I am a light weight.. Are you a Heavy weight...??? It seems the way you rudely attack everyones post, you may be.... as far as annoying you rank high at the moment... and I'm taking alot from you.. but I'm sure your not done... I had to read your other post 3 times in order to extract your "sentiment" and valuable input..Which there was... but it took 3 times past all the attacks.. Its a 2 way street.. Maybe it would be best to spare the members of this confrence any agrivation and post any other descusion on this matter privatly.... I have a personal e-mail, Hari.....! D- > > >----------------------- >To from this mailing list, send an email to: >Cow-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access — limited time only! Get dial-up Internet access now with our best offer: 6 months @$9.95/month! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 [This message was in HTML format] >"Mark Middle Mountain" >"Mark Middle Mountain" >"Cow (Protection and related issues)" >Re: rules for this conference >Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:24 -0500 > > >But you should consider the fact that when I saw someone say he wasn't a >fanatic.....(" not strict"... by my understanding) Madhusudana also feels so >standing next to me..( and is the context to which people refer to >most...( not strict)... THat was a mind bite for me and I replied with the >proper English term which is what is real and not serviced to anyones >conformed belief of the word which not everyone is influenced... > >Sorry Billy Bob, "fanatic" has a very negative connotation to most primary >English speakers. > Sorry Middle mount. I'm sure you're waiting for this one... I'm pretty sure this is based on your opinion and not some authorized consensus.... Seeing you know how to dig for reaction and as far as dishing out hold the largest pot... My primary language is English and as far as the the meaning of "fanatic" goes I've always known it as possitive.. or beyond normal in the godly sense.. I only recently looked it up in the dictionary and it holds true.. I will place it again for your benefit and any other of your unknowing assosiates that are confused... (Fanatic-- Inspired by a diety; Marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion).. This is from America's #1 paperback dictonary... From which I'm sure alot, if not "most" of primary English speakers find the meanings of words they don't know... hint...... > >This is quite a sting you've given me and I didn't appreciate it.. > >If you think that was a sting, you are a light weight. The annoying kind >that likes to dish it out but can't take it. > Not like a bee sting, like a friend who stabbed you in the back.. If you can relate.. Maybe I am a light weight.. Are you a Heavy weight...??? It seems the way you rudely attack everyones post, you may be.... as far as annoying you rank high at the moment... and I'm taking alot from you.. but I'm sure your not done... I had to read your other post 3 times in order to extract your "sentiment" and valuable input..Which there was... but it took 3 times past all the attacks.. Its a 2 way street.. Maybe it would be best to spare the members of this confrence any agrivation and post any other descusion on this matter privatly.... I have a personal e-mail, Hari.....! D- > > >----------------------- >To from this mailing list, send an email to: >Cow-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 In a message dated 1/2/2004 2:10:57 PM Central Standard Time, d_4h (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes: >(Fanatic-- Inspired by a diety; Marked by excessive enthusiasm and often >intense uncritical devotion).. Sorry to again add to this discussion, but I find it hard to sit by and see blatant misinformation posted regarding the definition of commonly used (and generally understood) words, (This is what keeps Psychology/English majors up at night). For those who may be reading the posts in this conference and for whom English is not their primary language, the above definition is not correct. I do not know where it came from. There are correct parts to that definition, but I am certain that key words (the negative ones) are being left out. That or there is an alternate definition that the writer is not willing to post. If this is not the case, I sincerely apologize and recomend another dictionary. I refer to the "American Heritage College Dictionary." This is the one recommended in most US college-level writing and composition courses. It lists only one definition of the word "fanatic" which actually fits the alternative word I turned to (uncompromising). Here goes: "Fanatic, (noun): A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." There is no alternative definition given. If someone is "fanatical" they are, "Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal," (again, no alternative definition, positive or negative). In case someone tries to draw a positve understanding from the above, I give you the word's history: The word fanatic came from the Latin word, 'fanaticus' which means "inspired by orgiastic rites relating to a temple. So we can understand that even if in modern English, fanatic has somehow taken a positive connotation among the people in general (at least two and in the same room), its root is not something positive or something commonly used to describe a pure devotee of the Lord. This dictionary is a couple of years old, but things have not changed THAT much. Regarding Derek (D_4h) feeling that Mother Chayadevi was warning him personally or singling him out--that he would be kicked out for using the word 'fanatic,' I believe that I was the one to introduce the word into the discussion (that SP was not a fanatic [as in unreasoning or uncompromising] when it came to the sale of milk). I took the guidance to heart for myself and (except for the purpose of putting an end to this bickering) will abide by it. I willingly apologized and did so out of respect for our many readers and the rules presented to me which were reasonable, (not out of fear of being removed from the conference). We can all understand by the resulting discussion, (of which this is a continuation), why Mother Chayadevi wisely posted the "rules for this conference." This sort of word is loaded. It and words like it have the ability to incite strong emotions and get people stirred up (case in point); especially when the word is applied to certain topics (such as religious leaders or religious movements). Therefore, Mother Chayadevi has kindly asked us to refrain from potentially explosive or inciting language; again, not an unreasonable request--all things considered. I regret again adding to this chain, but I don't work today, my wife and son are napping, and I've finished my japa. (nothing better to do -- sorry, I will go read soon). I'm also taking responsibility for introducing this word in the first place and again, I appeal to those fighting for the cause of using the word "fanatic" freely in this conference, to drop it and focus on lots and lots of beautiful Cows. Regarding Ghosh's comments -- for those who have not met Ghosh personally, in my experience he can and will be blunt, but there is always some truth to what he says. It's better to find the truth in what people are saying rather than simply react to it and argue. I've learned a lot about myself this way. In closing, I don't think that Mother Chayadevi's request was unreasonable (or fanatic) and there has to be rules and someone to enforce the rules or there will be anarchy--this topic really should not have gone on as long as it did. It seems there is more to the discussion now than the definition of a word--perhaps a resistance of perceived authority, or a lack of respect for elders. I've been there--it's a bitter cookie. Better to learn what there is to learn, offer respects, and move along. Now how 'bout those cows !?! Your servant with all respect, --Gopal dasa __ >"Mark Middle Mountain" >"Mark Middle Mountain" >"Cow (Protection and related issues)" >Re: rules for this conference >Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:24 -0500 > > >But you should consider the fact that when I saw someone say he wasn't a >fanatic.....(" not strict"... by my understanding) Madhusudana also feels so >standing next to me..( and is the context to which people refer to >most...( not strict)... THat was a mind bite for me and I replied with the >proper English term which is what is real and not serviced to anyones >conformed belief of the word which not everyone is influenced... > >Sorry Billy Bob, "fanatic" has a very negative connotation to most primary >English speakers. > Sorry Middle mount. I'm sure you're waiting for this one... I'm pretty sure this is based on your opinion and not some authorized consensus.... Seeing you know how to dig for reaction and as far as dishing out hold the largest pot... My primary language is English and as far as the the meaning of "fanatic" goes I've always known it as possitive.. or beyond normal in the godly sense.. I only recently looked it up in the dictionary and it holds true.. I will place it again for your benefit and any other of your unknowing assosiates that are confused... (Fanatic-- Inspired by a diety; Marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion).. This is from America's #1 paperback dictonary... From which I'm sure alot, if not "most" of primary English speakers find the meanings of words they don't know... hint...... > >This is quite a sting you've given me and I didn't appreciate it.. > >If you think that was a sting, you are a light weight. The annoying kind >that likes to dish it out but can't take it. > Not like a bee sting, like a friend who stabbed you in the back.. If you can relate.. Maybe I am a light weight.. Are you a Heavy weight...??? It seems the way you rudely attack everyones post, you may be.... as far as annoying you rank high at the moment... and I'm taking alot from you.. but I'm sure your not done... I had to read your other post 3 times in order to extract your "sentiment" and valuable input..Which there was... but it took 3 times past all the attacks.. Its a 2 way street.. Maybe it would be best to spare the members of this confrence any agrivation and post any other descusion on this matter privatly.... I have a personal e-mail, Hari.....! D- > > >----------------------- >To from this mailing list, send an email to: >Cow-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. . ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Cow-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 My dictionaries definition.... fanatic n. person who is carried away beyond reason because of feelings or beliefs, especially in religion or politics. - adj. unreasonably enthusiastic or zealous, especially in religion or politics. (from the Latin fanaticus inspired by divinity,< fanum temple) when in Ancient Rome speak latin..... when in the present..... obeisances ekaB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Billy Bob - you need some professional help; I feel sorry for you but my time is too limited to give you the help you need. You have completely flipped demanding everyone accept your definition of a WORD. 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.