Trolls & Hur...

[Guest guest]

> I am more like a caretaker to make sure the group functions. I

> don't

> > really know how Maharaj would have reacted. I know that sometimes

> he

> > threw the devotional folks out and in some cases he was kind to

> > them, relating them at their level. I think it depended how

> > respectful and geniune the seeker was.

>

> P: You are right, sometimes, he put up with them,

> but they were devotees of Hindu deities who came

> to him to learn from him. White Horse ( Frank) is not

> here to learn, but to proselytize for his own peculiar

> Christian cult. I don't think Maharaj would have allowed

> him to preach to his students in his own house. Anyway,

> he is gone, and it's you, as owner of the list, to decide

> whether this guy will drive people away or not. Sarlo too

> at the beginning, was reluctant to ban him, but later saw

> that Frank aim was to disrupt in the name of Christ

> what he views as the nonsense of pagans. Enough said!

> Whatever you decide is OK with me.

 

I am a moderator on the Sufi Mystic list, and

just this last week there was discussion on

that list about moderation, all due to the

unrelentingly obnoxious and disruptive posts

of one " whitehorserides " . The following is a

revised version of what I posted to the SM

list at that time:

 

Regarding Discussion List Moderation

 

Moderation is provided for a reason. A

good group can be screwed up by a member

or members that are not acting in the

group's interest. To take someone off

moderation after one message, for example,

is a bad policy. It defeats the entire

purpose of moderation.

 

So what *is* the purpose of moderation?

 

Moderation is to protect the group from

intrusions that are detrimental to the

group's purpose, which is discussion of

topics defined by the list's home page.

It's pretty simple.

 

What is off topic?

 

Talking about evangelical Christianity on a

non-dual list is off topic. Spam is off

topic. Relentless attacks on other members

at some point becomes off topic too. There

are a lot of ways of being " off topic " .

 

If a person is *deluging* the list with

messages then it is time to consider

moderating action as well, for such activity

is detrimental to the group's purpose.

 

Something that can be easily underestimated

is the impact that a " noisy " off topic

individual can have on new members. A

barrage of off topic material can create a

very distorted perception of what the list

is about. Veteran members know how to sift

out the noise from the legitimate content.

But new members don't have the perspective

to properly filter the messages. And such an

individual also has an impact on lurkers, as

lurkers are not likely to " come out " when

there is a sense of contention and turmoil

on the list.

 

Moderators can fall into the trap of basing

their assessments of need for intervention

on how the veteran members of the group are

handling things. But reflection should show

that it is really the new members and the

lurkers that need a moderator's services

the most. A really healthy group is one

where new members can move into active

participation with ease, and where lurkers

come to feel safe in expressing themselves.

In many ways moderation can be compared to

the weeding of a garden. Too many weeds

choke off healthy growth.

 

Most everyone agree's that moderation should

be kept at a minimum and still protect the

group from intrusions that are harmful to

the group. Certainly the " minimum " is not

nothing.

 

It is a naive and misguided view to consider

that the best moderation is none at all. The

character and quality of a group is greatly

affected by the character and quality of the

moderation.

 

 

In the particular case at hand, I see the

individual that we are discussing as being a

striking parallel to the case that confronted us

on SM. The one distinction is that this is a

more mature list and the members are not so

easily drawn into controversy by such an

individual. Nevertheless, it seems to me

appropriate to ban this individual from the

Nisargadatta list as he is consistently off

topic and adds considerable " noise " to the list

content. His presence is an unwanted and

unwarranted distraction in my view.

 

Bill

 

Note: " whitehorserides " *has* been banned

from the Sufi Mystic list.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <plexus@a...> wrote:

>

> > I am more like a caretaker to make sure the group functions. I

> > don't

> > > really know how Maharaj would have reacted. I know that

sometimes

> > he

> > > threw the devotional folks out and in some cases he was kind to

> > > them, relating them at their level. I think it depended how

> > > respectful and geniune the seeker was.

> >

> > P: You are right, sometimes, he put up with them,

> > but they were devotees of Hindu deities who came

> > to him to learn from him. White Horse ( Frank) is not

> > here to learn, but to proselytize for his own peculiar

> > Christian cult. I don't think Maharaj would have allowed

> > him to preach to his students in his own house. Anyway,

> > he is gone, and it's you, as owner of the list, to decide

> > whether this guy will drive people away or not. Sarlo too

> > at the beginning, was reluctant to ban him, but later saw

> > that Frank aim was to disrupt in the name of Christ

> > what he views as the nonsense of pagans.

 

These are not my views at all, Everything i hae written is back by

the Holy Spirit, and words by the Prohpets, NOT MY VIEW.

 

Enough said!

> > Whatever you decide is OK with me.

>

> I am a moderator on the Sufi Mystic list, and

> just this last week there was discussion on

> that list about moderation, all due to the

> unrelentingly obnoxious and disruptive posts

> of one " whitehorserides " .

 

BY THE WAY THERE were OPPOSING OPINIONS THAT saw no reason to not

allow me to partake in the discussion board, bill. So hold

your 'dark' horses there bud. Don't twist the truth for effect!

my posts were once ever 3-or 4 days, period, You lie.

 

nice personal attack, coming from a guy who has many people in common

as with me. Bill is an artist, and i had a national art disrtrbution

business in the USA for 18 years and no doubt we know many of the

same people personally.

regardless bill is just looking out for his own personal interest,

and i too, My Fathers Word.

Where i end up on which lists has been quite interesting over 6

months. These impersonal, sufi and hindu lists are very close to me

and though i present opposing views, let it be said, that opposition

is good, So you get beat in your own turf, doesn't that happen in

sport. This is often been considered good sport, i don't rail on

people calling them insulting names but i'm often attacked. They

always come first at me before i try to administer the Good

medicine.

 

The following is a

> revised version of what I posted to the SM

> list at that time:

>

> Regarding Discussion List Moderation

>

> Moderation is provided for a reason. A

> good group can be screwed up by a member

> or members that are not acting in the

> group's interest.

 

whitehorse says

 

To the readers here.

No doubt, the moderators are usually partnered with the owner of the

site or group, and want to insulate the group from outside influence

to protect it from what?

 

There own failures to know the Truth perfectly. One who has all the

answers is never affected by anyone's ideas and welcomes all

challenges. Therefore, that presents God.

Now obviously if a group is insecure and cannot calmly, carefully

defeat the 'so called 'intruder' and their blend of philosophy' is

exposed as blemished, should that be cause for removal or a review

of just how to properly answer? Or as in the ancient days the one who

won the debate surrendered to the other and followed. That was the

practice in India in days gone passed.

 

So since this post is about me, i might add that iwas never given a

chance or free oportunity to speak at Sufi and was moderated from

the get go. Posts were taking 3 -7 hours to get to the baord, which

my compaint became that it's not in the flow of the group and comes

too late. So i suggested that if you moderate, then moderate, and

within a 30 minute period should a post come up. But here was an

example of not enough moderators ie not 24/7 and on the board.

 

So my post that got there goat was, 'where's the moderators'? out to

lunch.?

 

to take someone off

> moderation after one message, for example,

> is a bad policy. It defeats the entire

> purpose of moderation.

>

> So what *is* the purpose of moderation?

>

> Moderation is to protect the group from

> intrusions that are detrimental to the

> group's purpose, which is discussion of

> topics defined by the list's home page.

> It's pretty simple.

 

pretty simple, insulate to protect, from what? disturbance, from who,

God or people. Are not all one, in the Oneness world, all go to one,

hence words are just words. What you should moderate is the spam or

inulting words to each other and freely allow philosophy to flow

since one God is at the center of the discussion. This is the purpose

behind Truth or the heart or soul is to know Soul.

i would gladly accept Truth but why accept man who speaks of his own

blend of truth without Truth, to back him up. Just ideas or

imagination. If this group were truthful then they would have to find

where the source of knowlege is coming from, As i have asked and get

no response . Where does Nisa get hiw ideas? Even i answered my own ?

b/c it appears no one of the group knows. _____go figure.!! lol

 

Then you have a datta do swami who is a krishna devotee posing as one

who knows jesus but yet puts forth christianity in Jesus's name.

Another liar, therefore he must be exposed. And if he is worth his

salt he would come and challege or defend his diatribe.

but he can't cause he's a fake. What's he doing here? so he's put in

his place he can come back but well give him more to sleep on. lol

>

> What is off topic?

>

> Talking about evangelical Christianity on a

> non-dual list is off topic.

 

An i don't speak from a platform of eve chr. as said but the non-

duality of oneness, taught by the Holy Spirit across both Testaments

b/c the same one God is there, There is not 32 gods in the Bible and

He definately doesn't teach duality, nor christianity nor judaism,

but a universal appeal to walking in the Truth according to His Word.

 

peace my friends

 

lets get busy with God's Word and remove all dualities in the name of

pure and perfect Love.

 

jai Nisa.

 

whitehorse rides again

 

 

>