Sunya

As someone else said, this is a privately owned website. Sean runs it and pays for it. Stig, if you have such a problem with the way things are run here, why don't you open up your own website?

Nonono! We should start a thread about it and all talk about it, share our views. Were you hurt by this? I was. I'm so offended. I was washing dishes earlier today and had a flashback. I felt pain and hurt by this breaking of rules. How do you feel about it? I wish others would tell me how they felt about it. I don't know what to do! I'm glad we all talked about tulku's recent offense. I can rest easy now and catch some Zs knowing that we cleared the air due to our discussion of it. It's important for us all to discuss everything. We're a community after all. Every little thing has to be talked about and nitpicked over. We are humans! We have feelings!

Are you going to start a thread for every little squabble you see so we can all discuss it? We are all grownups. We can all deal with our own issues here. If there is an argument, the people involved can handle it. It's not difficult to simply stop replying to somebody or even put them on ignore if need be.

Actually Stig that tulku situation you created is a perfect example of what Sloppy and I are talking about. The person who was 'insulted' didn't even care about the insult, but for some reason you were disturbed and decided to play cop and start that thread calling for his 'immediate suspension.' What was the point? They could've dealt with it themselves instead of you jumping in to her rescue. The issue was between them. Another example of over sensitivity on this forum.

Great post Sloppy. I completely agree. Tempers sometimes flare, and I think that's totally fine. I rarely if ever report people. I think anger can be a catalyst sometimes for the real 'gunk' as you say to come out. But some people are offended or just want peaceful discussions, and all I can say is that they should lead by example instead of trying to impose their will on others. If this is supposed to be a Taoist forum, we should follow the way of Laozi and not have much authority if at all. Only in the worst cases when it's necessary should there be any moderation. I think people should work things out for the most part by themselves. If not, there's always the blocking. Edit: it's still possible to block people, right? I've never done it and can't find it.

I'm not the one who was banned. Can you please leave? You bring so much negativity to this place.

lol no I didn't report you. I don't report anyone really. I think some members here have gotten way too sensitive and dramatic and need to chill out

wow you guys are wayyyy too sensitive

my addition in bold

welcome

So what happens if 2012 comes and passes and nothing happens? No financial collapse, no great cataclysm, no aliens coming, nothing. Sure, I bet stuff will happen, but stuff always happens. But what if nothing significant happens? I'm sure people will find another year to worry about on which they can project all their fears and anxieties onto.

I see no reason for me to be suspended. Let's take a look at my 'insults' I was merely stating a fact, not directly calling Scott an arrogant snob, but stating the fact that I called Scott that in private rather than directly attack him in public. It wasn't an insult, but a recollection of what happened. What caused me to say this? Perhaps it was this: and and then of course Scott calling us 'pseudo-Buddhists' because we don't agree with his claim that Buddhist is inferior to Taoism. Let's look at the whole message I posted: Clearly from the message he sent me, Scott was very angry and acting mentally unstable. Is it really an insult to conclude that from the message he sent? Acting like a drama queen is an analogy for how Scott has been acting in this thread, which I doubt anyone will disagree with. He's been making a huge deal out of things would would've been forgotten by now and calling a lot of attention onto himself on purpose. If that isn't 'acting like a drama queen' I don't know what it is. An observation to describe how he's acting. Again an analogy. Scott has been acting like he was defiled in some extreme way and is calling for justice, like a rape victim would, except the seriousness of these 'crimes' hardly justify the ridiculous behavior we've seen from Scott. So me saying he's acting like a rape victim was actually a joke to point out that he's making a huge deal out of nothing. Let me repeat again that the only reason Scotty is freaking out so much about me not being suspended is because he wants me punished for hurting his pride. Not because I insulted him (clearly these are light jabs and not worth suspension) but because I called out his ridiculous behavior and shined a light upon his real intentions here, to cause drama and punish people who hurt his pride by challenging his authority as an enlightened being and sole bearer of truth.

lol why do you care so much about moderators enforcing policies when you said "if there was no moderation, Seth and I would have worked things out easily. This forum functioned awesomely in the past without mods"??? In this case for a while there was no moderation. You could've worked things out without involving the mods. But you didn't. You whined and whined to get Seth banned and ended up getting banned yourself since you were extremely provocative and disrespectful. Well, all of this could've been avoided if you simply were respectful in the first place and worked out the issues you create with people directly, instead of running to authority to punish people who hurt your pride and then whining when this authority recognizes that you too were at fault.

hmm... then how do you explain this? http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20404-seth-ananda-needing-to-be-banned/

It seems you're so angry you can't think clearly. By saying "if there was no moderation, Seth and I would have worked things out easily. This forum functioned awesomely in the past without mods" is basically saying, well quite obviously, that you would have preferred to work things out without getting the mods involved as they are unnecessary to the functioning of this forum. Yet, that's the total opposite of what you did. Instead of PMing Seth or me and trying to directly work things out, you chose instead to start this thread and whine, whine, whine to the mods. See the hypocrisy?

You're the one that started this thread You just said: "If there was no moderation, Seth and I would have worked things out easily. This forum functioned awesomely in the past without mods. It is in a much worse state these days BECAUSE of them. Funny." If the forum functions so awesomely without mods and you could've worked things out, I ask you again for the third time why you started whining to the mods instead of working things out?

You just said "If there was no moderation, Seth and I would have worked things out easily." Why didn't you work things out with Seth anyway? Why whine to the mods instead? lol I'm not being provocative. I'm stating the facts. This whole thread is one big hissy fit. You were whining like crazy to the mods to get Seth banned, and now you're attacking the mods and saying "we could've worked things out without the mods." WELL WHY DIDN'T YOU THEN?

Uhhh, you were the one who was throwing a hissy fit because you got insulted, started this thread, and whined like crazy to get Seth banned.

What's your home address? This universe is getting a bit old. Time to spice things up.

I do apologize about the insults Scott, like calling you an arrogant snob and angry and mentally unstable, but I don't apologize about saying you're acting like a drama queen and a rape victim. And you certainly keep reinforcing those observations...

CowTao, I'm not talking about awakening to our true nature or liberation. I am referring to Buddahood which according to Mahayana/Vajrayana results from the cultivation of method (siddhi) in order to benefit all beings. http://www.fpmt.org/.../paths_sopa.php

CowTao, It may be fantastical, but I think it's pretty in line with Mahayana/Vajrayana. How come you see it differently?

It is my understanding that in Theravada the goal is liberation or the cessation of suffering, so psychic powers may be developed through jhana but are not the goal, nor are they seen as necessary for liberation. But in Mahayana, specifically Vajrayana, psychic powers are developed in order to help other beings. If Tulku means 'Buddhahood' by 'enlightened' then he is essentially correct, except what is missing is compassion and experiential knowledge of emptiness. So in Buddhist view, Arhat is liberated but may or may not have siddhis. Buddha is not only liberated but has deep compassion and limitless siddhis.