snowymountains

I'm wondering how others view DDJ commentaries, not if this or that commentary is good/bad. The use of DDJ commentaries in principle. I believe a commentary can only detract. The language of DDJ is written in a way to resonate within in a profound way and unless the commentator is equally skilled, any additional text will miss the most important part, the part where the text resonates within us and instead the commentary will replace this resonation with a cognitive process. Personally I won't read a commentary as I don't want the commentator's cognitive processes to be activated next time I read the DDJ.

And ? What's that supposed to mean exactly ? Can you clarify "get" please? I've taken a screenshot of your post which you made under the capacity of a moderator. I hope you "get" what GDPR is.

No, you're just wasting your time and mine too, as I'm not interested in having this discussion with you. Yet, despite your links and theories, US companies and sites comply. I do not need to provide any additional information to my GDPR request, which has been filed. I will be waiting for the site to fulfil their obligations. So if you don't mind, I won't be interacting further.

You're knocking on the wrong door, believe what you want.

Sorry I'm not the one who will provide you the info you as to why US companies comply with GDPR. I've said multiple times I'm not interested in having this discussion with you. Also kindly note that I have now made a GDPR request and have nothing to add to this thread. My request is complete as-is and wish to add nothing to it, so I do not wish to add further responses to this thread.

I've said multiple times, I'm not interested in having this discussion. You searched, you reached a conclusion and you cannot understand why us companies comply, you'll have to find the answer elsewhere, not from me.

As I said previously, you can look these things up on your own. We have moved on.

When discussing about mod ignoring a fundamental right of EU citizens, the issue is with the word "profanity" ? I want to be clear as well, if this site cannot show respect for a citizen right, then I want to have nothing to do with it. Therefore, I am making a GDPR request. Kindly note that this is not limited to deletion of my posts and revocation of my membership which you mention in your response. Also, revocation of my membership has no impact on the requirement to fulfil the rest of the obligations by the site. What also needs to be deleted includes quotes of my posts by other members, appearances of my username "snowymountains" in text, indirect references to it eg "snowy", as well as references to my username. This concerns both the boards and private chats between members. Also kindly note that I am entitled to a communication of the date by which all of the above will have happened and that they need to be done in a timely manner.

I'll reply again, more directly. I gather you have a question as to why, technically, US companies comply with GDPR, I am not interested in having this discussion, that is not the intent of my posts. It's a different topic entirely. Honestly, all I need is ask for my right to be respected and if I ever choose to exercise it, for timely compliance - and I shouldn't even need to cite GDPR for this, compliance responsibilities are sorely with providers, not with EU citizens.

As you say yourself US companies do comply with GDPR (or block EU users entirely so that they don't have a compliance burden). If it's an intellectual question as to why US companies comply with the right to be forgotten, as it may look unintuitive to you, this is fine, but exploring this inquiry is not the intent of my posts. The fact is they do comply. It's interesting that if a registered member who is an EU citizen at some point wishes their data removed, they actually do not even need to cite GDPR, just request that a site removes all their data and references to them in plain English.

If a member's posts, quotes of posts, references to a member etc, stay or not depends entirely on whether the member wishes them to stay or not, if the member is an EU citizen. It's a right we have, I'm sorry if you find that right "tragic" but it became a right exactly so that it applies regardless of anyone's personal views and feelings about it.

You can find e.g. the later French ruling, as well as later rulings by other member states, which were enforced, beyond the EU borders, US companies currently comply with it or if compliance burden is too high, block EU users entirely, as it's EU users who have this right. I am not interested in discussing further how you feel about it, how you interpret it etc if you don't mind. You may have your view of course but ultimately it does not matter if you are convinced it's a right or not, feel free to make a site where you ignore it if you want, not particularly interested. I do expect the site and the mods to respect that those members who are EU citizens have this right, instead of @forestofclarity 's profanities

it goes well beyond self-editing the content, e.g. it includes but is not limited to quoted posts by other members, messages, private messages between different members who refer to a member. The issue is that @forestofclarity believes he's at liberty to define if posts stay forever or not and also ask that we "get" it. He's not at liberty to define anything on that matter and they do not stay forever, it's a choice (for EU citizens)

Our right to be forgotten applies globally. There have been further rulings after the 2019 one, by member-state courts, which have been fully enforced. My point though is not to discuss the judicial history of this, my point is that I expect this right to be fully respected, especially by mods. Which is the opposite of what I'm seeing right now.

I see, an interesting question is which branches have someone representing them today that's both a scholar/academic and a rigorous practitioner ? I gather from the above Ge Guolong is one for HYJ. Another scholar and practitioner which seems to be of high standards is Fabrizio Pregadio. I believe the site you linked is his. Which branch does he practice? One thing that's held me from looking into Neidan is not the practice itself, after all I haven't practiced it and thus do not have a view. But a lot of teachers look rather snakeoil-y to me and verifying their transmission always seemed to be a complex task. Looking at scholars of high standards who are also practitioners, simplifies selection. Some candidate names Ge Guolong, Fabrizio Pregadio. Livia Kohn also looks very interesting. Are there others like them?

Thanks TT, How do branches differ, I gather they have a different textual basis, perhaps with some overlap, but are their end goals similar? Eg is a GF practitioner aiming at the same goals as a Huang Yuan-ji practitioner, just using different techniques and methods?

No clue on the book. The book author though is discussed in another thread: https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/56188-the-neidan-direct/

For all EU citizens, their posts are not there for the foreseeable eternity. We have a right to be forgotten, it's federal legislation, what he meant is simply wrong. It's application is also entirely out of his discretion. He even went as far as to say people should "get" his claim. No, he should get it's entirely outside his discretion, he doesn't get to define anything on that front, federal legislation does. In another post he suggests he does what he wants and says whoever doesn't like it may leave, while from the moment a single EU citizen has registered ever with the site, GDPR applies, whether he likes it or not. Will the site do a GDPR compliance course for its mods? It seems to me @forestofclarity is having some difficulties understanding it, it's a fundamental right in the EU and it's taken very seriously.

All EU citizens have the right to be forgotten, the forum and you need to respect that, it's statutory for all and not subject to your personal whims and wishes. If you don't like that feel free to not mod a forum, you don't get to define a citizen right, I'm sorry. Instead of responding with profanities that public posts are public, please be mindful, what you want everyone to "get" is simply not in your discretion for EU citizens.

I find it ludicrous that acting at moderator capacity you challenge a fundamental right in the EU, "right to be forgotten", backed by federal legislation (GDPR) and respond with profanities that public posts are public. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this, you can move posts all you want, you however cannot ask anyone to "get" what you ask here, the right to be forgotten is not subject to any of your personal whims and whishes.

Right, you moved those posts to a section where I cannot respond because for non-moderators it's read only, only you can respond there and provided the dictionary definition of get there. How convenient You also took the liberty to pick and choose which posts to include in the new thread you created, not including your original post. Instead of drifting the conversation to profanities like the dictionary definition of get and that the content of public posts is public - Please be mindful, privacy-wise public posts are as good as private chats, for all EU citizens, regardless of whether you like that or not.

Please do not underestimate my intelligence, I expect an answer on what you meant by "get", you made a direct reference to privacy.

Yes, privacy needs to be at the same level. It's privacy, not the content of the public posts ( as long as they don't contain private information ). It's also statutory and enforced by the EU itself, which leaves me baffled as to @forestofclarity understanding of this right every EU citizen has and applies globally. He doesn't seem to understand what it says nor that it's a right, nor that citizens do not need to make legal proceedings. It's not elective for @forestofclarity to respect it or not, it's statutory. I'm surprised to read all this in 2024 I have to say and I would expect the site to take a clear stance on this.

IRL I'm almost exactly how I am online. I actually do engage in small talk with strangers (when time allows it). It's not the case for most people though, IRL vs online shows different behaviour patterns ( for most, not all ).

Please be aware, per GDPR people have a statutory right with regards to their privacy both "in the present" and "several years in the future". Privacy actually needs to be as strong as if conversations were "private between two people". Please clarify what you meant about what people do not get. Also please explain why you perceived GDPR compliance to be a "legal threat".