Stigweard

Chen Pan Ling Tai Ji Quan Chen Pan Ling was born in 1892 and spent his entire life studying and teaching Chinese martial arts until his death in 1967. He was expert in external martial arts as well as the three major internal arts: Xingyiquan, Baguazhang, and Taijiquan. During the 1940's, he was involved in the Central Guoshu Institute as a vice president and chaired a committee charged with collating traditional martial arts and developing standardized forms and practices. Read more about Chen Pan Ling Tai Ji Quan

Zhi Dao Guan, The Taoist Center, Oakland, California School Name: Zhi Dao Guan, The Taoist Center and Wu Tao Kuan Martial Art Institute Overview: A robust Center for the Daoist arts - healing, physical health, spiritual health - Clinic for Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wu Tao Kuan Martial Arts Instuitute, and the Zhi Dao Temple. Founded by Dr. Alex Feng, called The Real Deal. Come and explore Dao in whichever of the Arts calls to you, in an urban Center that is a Taoist community. Read more about Zhi Dao Guan, The Taoist Center

by By Xinhua writers Li Jianmin, Yao Yuan, Jia Zhao and Xie Ying NANYUE, Hunan, Oct. 25 (Xinhua) -- From environmental protection to crime prevention, Taoist priests, scholars and dignitaries on Tuesday called for building a harmonious world by using the ancient wisdom of Lao Tze, a Chinese philosopher who lived over 2,500 years ago. During the three-day International Taoism Forum, which closed in central China's Hunan Province on Tuesday, about 500 delegates from more than 20 countries and regions, including China, the United States, France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Japan, exchanged thoughts on how to integrate Lao Tze's philosophy into modern society in an effort to solve existing problems such as war, terrorism and financial crises. Read more...

I'm hearing you

Cheers matey And I agree with your statements, learning online can only take you so far. The touch and eye of a good teacher is what you need to make real progress. Actually I know very little about Chen Pan Ling style, and there is one very good way to remedy that. Perhaps you would be so kind to throw a few words together and drop it into the Tai Chi Discussion area and I will link it through to the Tai Chi Styles page.

LOL ... nice to be approved of Cheers

Just dropping through briefly to offer a sincere apology to any folks I may have offended in my recent "campaign". I know that my actions seemed completely out of proportion with both my usual behavior and with what appeared to be the situation. And I understand why people were getting upset with me and why some folks made the comments they did in response. The reason for the seeming disproportion is that there is "other stuff" going on behind the scenes (both in my life and on this forum), stuff that I am unable to talk about. Maybe one day all will be talked about and maybe then you will understand. I am hoping that enough of you know me well enough to trust that, even though it looked like I was trying to be destructive, my only thought, my only intention, was for the greater good of this community. Once I had set myself on a path of action I had to follow it through all the way, I was committed. The outcome was inevitable, I knew that, and I also knew that there would be some collateral damage along the way. Maybe some of you don't respect me as much as you once did. Maybe I have irreparably damaged treasured friendships. I am truly deeply sorry for this. I will trust in the movement of my own spirit that I have achieved what I had hoped to achieve, that the seed of my intent will find roots and grow. But that is no longer in my hands, its for others to perhaps carry forward. For now though I must sign out, perhaps for the last time, but nothing is forever. But just in case, I will leave as I came... I toss the pebble Ripples distort the surface Flowing back to self

Ah yes, if you don't like what someone is saying and you have nothing constructive to discuss about the content of their speech or their ideas, then let's all make character assessments and denigrations of the person. Nice job folks! Character assassination really is the lowest form of debate, but I guess it's got you expressing your thoughts and feelings and that's all good hahahaha !!! OK let's get a few responses out of the way: @mjjbecker Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not agitating AGAINST moderators, I am advocating FOR the exploration of ways, means and processes of achieving Laozi's libertarianism here on TTBs. My right and liberty to free-speech entitles me to stand up and say, "Hey guys this is the way I reckon it should be." Yes this is me advocating for my opinion on "how things should be". Again it is my right and liberty to be able to speak freely without people trying to shut me down. Not you, not the mods, not Sean, not anybody has the right to censor my voice in this (unless I break forum rules which clearly I am not). If you don't like my ideas, great say so and I will defend your right to say so (you may have noticed that I follow through on this sentiment). Argue against my ideas, prove me wrong like what has happened in other topics where I have been advocating. I have proven that I will consider people's opinions and arguments and, if in the final analysis I have been proven wrong, I will publicly say so and THANK all those who have helped me understand better. But please don't give me this censorship bullshit. Again it is my right to freely seek, share, and receive ideas and information on this forum UNLESS I am causing harm or undue, excessive offense to other members (aka direct personal insults). And personally insulting moderators?? No my friend there is no incident of me doing that. Yes I have criticized their decisions and the way that have handed out their judgments. And I have criticized the structure of the Mod Team and the way it is managed. But I have been careful not to attack them personally as individuals. Yes no doubt they would have taken some of my criticism personally. But they will only take it personally in as much and in proportion to their attachments to their positions and to the way or process of TaoBums moderation. Because THAT is what I am really focusing on. It's not their fault they are acting in the way they are and I am certainly not saying its Sean's fault either (Sean knows and understands how much respect I have for him and his achievement here). The fault lies in the fact that the way the system is set up CREATES a social atmosphere which encourages people, forces them almost, to behave in a certain way. Case in point: Why is it do you think that the moderators, who all used to be major contributors to the forum, gradually over time post less and less and only really interact with people in times of moderation action? Why is it do you think that over time moderators post only their best wisdom and insight in a hidden forum where no-one apart from other moderators can benefit from their wisdom and experience? Why is it do you think that moderators go from treating people like the friends of equal status they once were to treating other members like naughty little children? Why is it do you think that people who used to be bright sparks of humor and mirth on the forum gradually become so dour that they can't recognize humor when it sitting right in front of their faces? Becoming a moderator on this forum in the way it is set up changes you, it robs you of the enjoyment of being a regular ol' Bum. You lose objectivity, you become insulated in a little bubble. It forces you into becoming authoritarian with members who used to be your friends. It creates a very distinct wall between you and the and the rest of the forum, and it forces you to become more calloused in the face of continual insults and abuse from members you are passing judgement on. I have been there so I am speaking from experience. And just as this happened to me it has and is happening to the members of the Mod Team. Am I being a provocateur? Am I being an agitator? Am I being disruptive? Or am I throwing a lifeline to dear friends who are slowly fading to black? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- @steve I would have loved to have been looking you right in the eye when you said that matey. Just personal hey? With no hint of being a moderator at all? B.S. !!! Ahh, but you did tell the other mods though didn't you Steve? What did you say, "Hey guys I have sent Stig a PM"? Perhaps in a thread you guys have got about me on the Concierge Dungeon? Ahh, I see ... so Steve, contrary to your previous claims, your PM to me was NOT a personal message and it was NOT private because you went and told all the other Mods about it behind my back! And you cried so indignantly about me betraying YOUR confidence! Don't forget Steve I used to be a moderator, and there were a few times I sent a very similar PM to other members as an unofficial-official moderator's action. Let's put it down as a rookie mistake shall we? And IF it was as a friend (which I now don't believe for a second) then you have a piss-poor way of talking to your friends. The whole "I am disappointed in you" was so full of patronizing denigration. It's obvious to me matey that you tried to assume some sort of paternal authority over me and started making character assessments rather than really trying to "get" the reason why I am being vocal. It's like there is a sentiment here that if someone stands up and speaks their mind in an honest and free way (especially if its critical of the Mod Team) there must be something "wrong" with them (coming to you in a second zerostao ). To this: "My comment about your political agenda trumping your desire to have a personal relationship is a statement of fact based on my direct and personal experience of the past 24 hours." Incorrect, it is a statement of your subjective OPINION and BIAS. That's all it is. If we make your argument a standard practice, I could equally say that my opinions about the Mod Team "not working" is a STATEMENT OF FACT based on my direct and personal experience over the past 3 years. As such, because it is now a "fact," there is no way how my statements could be deemed as offensive or insulting to anyone. Furthermore, because it is now a "fact" and because, under your same logic, my opinions on what to do are also a "fact" then it would be also factually correct to say that anyone who disagrees with me is a delusional moron. How far down this rabbit-hole do you want to go Steve? So now that we know that your previous comment is in no way a "statement of fact" but only your subjective opinion and bias, and because it was certainly a statement that demeaned and denigrated my character, then I can quite comfortably say that it was indeed an insult. Thus Steve you are now officially in breach of the forum's "No Insult" policy and seeing that you did not have the good grace to rescind on your statement upon my request, as I did voluntarily in my slight against you, but in fact you went further to justify your comment with even more demeaning comments, then I am most definitely requesting FORMAL action from the rest of the moderating team. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- @zerostao Well matey your whole commentary has been invalidated by your parting statement: "stig, i suggest seeking professional help dude." Yet another direct and personal insult which I want moderators to act upon, and formally request to be informed about the outcome. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- @Apech I appreciate you pitching in. And I certainly respect that in your view the decisions the Mod Team are making and how they are being delivered is all rosy and sunshine. But please respect my right to see it differently and please also respect my right to speak up when I feel that I must. The idea that we should just automatically accept and respect moderators actions and decisions is quite frankly offensive. There should always be checks and balances in any style of management and in here its people who are willing to stand up and say, "Hey wait just a second!" The very notion that moderator's decisions are beyond repeal or question and that you are trying to tell everyone that that is what they should be doing is very disturbing to me. It's about on par with the notion that politicians can do whatever they want and make any law they want and we must just gobble it up without question like good little consumers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- @Sloppy Zhang Just letting you know that I am hearing your suggestion and think that what you are suggesting and what I am suggesting can actually work hand in hand. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now if we are done with my character assessments perhaps we could return to actually discussing content and the ideas being presented. I am advocating FOR the exploration of ways, means and processes of achieving Laozi's libertarianism here on TTBs. Now my version or vision of this is about members having full access and the right to contribute to any and all moderation considerations. The Mod Team is still there and they are the ones still being the enforcers. But their roles change from chief decision makers to: * facilitators and participants of the moderation discussion, * advocates for the free-speech and liberty of each individual. No more secret discussions. No more we are only upholders of the "law". No more us vs them. No more a few of us managing the rest of us. The division between members and moderators is removed and we all mix it up in the spirit of "us doing it together."

Ahhh... character assessment time ... well that is as inevitable as it is regrettable. Your PM royally pissed me off Steve and it made me question your character. I reacted to it without proper thought. That is regrettable. Yup I betrayed your confidence insofar as I posted a private message. But I want you to be brutally honest Steve. Did you write that PM as a friend or as a moderator? Asked another way, if you were not a moderator now would have sent that PM in the way you did? Because I can tell you straight that it certainly felt like a moderators action. Like in the discussions you folks are having about me behind my back you volunteered to "have a private word with me". It didn't at all come across in the way a friend would talk, with all your patronizing "I am disappointed" rhetoric. You sounded like a moderator left, right and center. In that distinct feeling I had about the nature of your PM I got upset, quite upset. And I overlooked my usual approach of walking away for a bit before I did anything based on emotion. I handled it unskillfully. Rereading you PM now, yup that was a moderator's message Steve no doubt. For what? Being provocative? For opposing a decision that was poorly adjudicated and even more poorly executed. For being the one to see the hypocrisy of how things are being managed and daring to be the one to step up and call it? You had no grounds to act like a moderator to me, thus I could equally say that you have betrayed our friendship because that's frigging well how it felt at the time. And I am calling you on your insult Steve. "Stig's political agenda is more important than cultivating relationships with people." That my friend is an insult. It demeans me and it demeans the actual intention of what I am trying to do. I feel very insulted by this (that counts doesn't it, that I feel insulted ... remember cheerleadergate?), but who should I report it to? Should I request a 7-day suspension Steve because you have dumped an insult on me? I was man enough to recant and apologize for an error that I admit I made. Your turn Steve. And then I guess that makes us just about even, right? And this is the bullshit that is coming out of this friken divisive autocratic system. It's a division of members that is CREATING divisiveness amongst members. If we were truly working together as members, as a community, then there would be absolutely no chance or opportunity for this situation to arise where friends are at each other's throats.

Oh blah, blah, blah, Sean's site, blah, blah, blah. Sean wouldn't close down this site and he knows it. He has too many attachments to it to do that. So let's forget about him exercising that power. And both Sean and the appointed moderators could also suspend or ban me right now as well. But they have no grounds to do that (because "no insults," for the most part, is part of my personal ethic not because I am restraining myself to conform to a rule) so that's not going to happen either. Sure they could suddenly change their rules and say, "Anyone who speaks up against the Mod Team or challenges the way things are done will be suspended". But somehow I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. So my liberty and rights to speak freely is uninhibited, wouldn't you say? As to gratitude. Well those who know me here, including Sean and the Mod Team, know that my gratitude to The TaoBums and to its members is beyond measure. In fact the passion that drives my efforts is exactly proportional to the gratitude that I have for this community. As to entitlement. Hell yes! I claim my right to speak as I choose. I claim my right to have an opinion on the way things are being managed. I claim my right to voice my opinion and be as provocative as I want. And I claim my right to advocate what I consider to be better ways of operating as a community. Really? No freedom? Well matey here I am speaking freely in a "daoist sense". My personal guidelines of virtue wouldn't have me posting any of the offending matter you mentioned above anyway so I have no restrictions there. The ONLY restriction that is offensive in a "daoist sense", and the one that I am obviously challenging, is the idea that we have the Mod Team making decisions for everybody, that the members have been robbed of their ability to be self-moderating and self-determining. We have an autocratic power structure which I think violates Laozi's principles of libertarianism and thus I think it is a hypocrisy for a Daoist community like TTBs to be operating as such. Yes Sean has the right to manage this forum any way he wants. But I also have the right to challenge that view if I feel I need to and speak as freely as I want about it. If you are trying to tell me that I should just accept the way it is and not ask "why?" then you are advocating blind ignorance. You are telling me that, even though I see a blaring error that violates the very purpose we are here i.e. Daoism, that I should just hold my tongue and say nothing. Why? Because its Sean's site and I am just a guest? I am not just a guest. You are not just a guest. We are members of a community. Sean wouldn't even have this site up if we weren't here. He wouldn't be able to "pay the bills" if we weren't here. The fact that we are here means that he can ask $$ from the advertisers you see up. The fact that we are here means people click on the adsense ads that gives him a trickle of income. The fact that we are here means he has a mailing list he can email to to make some cash from affiliates. The fact that we are here means he gets cash from the people who become yearly subscribers. You think Sean has all the power here ... ha! Sean is just as dependent on us for this site as we are dependent on him. It's a perfectly symbiotic relationship. I am a member of this community and if something disturbs me, if something offends me than my human liberty entitles me to speak my mind openly and freely. If you don't agree with me than it is your human liberty that entitles you to speak your mind openly and freely. Ain't that just beutiful!!!! Well obviously I agree with you 100% But its also the simple plain fact that people can't and therefore we need to have some controls in place. It's the "how to" of those controls that is the issue here. On one end of the scale we have no control, at the other we have autocratic control. My preference is to have a control mechanism that is as close to no control as possible whilst still minimizing forum disturbances. Thus have a situation where members have a way of working it out themselves and have a Mod Team with the power to simply enforce the consensus. Have all the discussion open and free for all to engage in. Let it be "us moderating ourselves as a community."

Which shows how very little you know about me. But that's OK I know very little about you as well.

Thank you dawei for taking the time to consider my ramblings thoughtfully. You have raised some important issues to discuss. 1. Lynch-mobbing against some members; What, you mean lynch-mobbing isn't already happening? It will inevitably happen. One member might take objection to a the conversation of a group of members and jump in and say something about it. Then the group turns on the individual, posts up a moderation topic in the said Moderation Forum and, because they have the majority vote, they try and enforce action on the individual. Well firstly I will trust that fact that other mature members will see this and pitch in, thus preventing the majority enforcement. Secondly, it would be the responsibility of existing Moderators to make sure the minority voice doesn't get minoritized. So yes this still means that I support the idea of having a Mod Team but their roles and delegations would be different. They would be facilitators of the moderation discussion, helping and guiding conversation to reach some sort of member generated consensus. They would be advocates for each individual to make sure everyone's voice is heard properly and that lynch-mobbing doesn't occur. They would be participants in the discussions sharing their views on what could/should be done and contributing their valuable experience from previous incidences. And of course they would respond to member-consensus by being enforcers of moderation actions. 2. Trolls which just refuse to go away since there is not rule to ban them. Actually I am not advocating this at all. Because what would happen is that the members in the relevant topics/forums would either hit the Report Button for a Mod to create a Moderation Topic about the Troll, or they would create their own topic. Thus the Mod discussion is initiated and actions enforced as per normal. 3. Controlling the flamming in the sense that it has to get moved out of the general area and then let them go somewhere select to continue it; if two people actually want to continue it in another place, they deserve each other. Well this is where the Moderation Forum comes into play, because members and mods do our best to redirect it into the relevant topic in the Mod Forum. There they can duke it out but with the presence of Mods and other members who are interested/concerned enough about it. 4. But what if they refuse to stop the flamming in the general area. The general areas are for the general members and one bad apple can spoil the pie. So it can be a delicate balance of allowing someone the freedom to be an A-hole but you spoil the forum experience for several dozen who have to endure this; and some may be turned away due to such people. Well that's already happening now. Under the modeling I am suggesting, no doubt a Mod Topic would have been started about it and no doubt members would have voiced their concern and no doubt someone would say "This A-hole" needs to take a xyz-day break which just follows that the Mod Team uses the enforcer powers. 5. I've seen examples of this kind of 'freedom' in posting and it can almost shut down a forum due to one or two who refuse to be there in the expressed idea of what a discussion forum represents. The 'Way' allows that there is diversity in every species and some are naturally A-holes; I am not trying to change their nature but I have seen it almost ruin boards. This goes back to #2, in that I am not advocating "no moderation", but instead that all moderation discussion be made open and available to all members. Of course mods would be probably the main or most frequent ones discussing as well as trying to divert the dialogue of relevant members into the appropriate topic, but all members should have the equal freedom to participate in moderation discussion. Again, in case any of my previous comments have given the wrong impression, I am NOT trying to abolish the Mod Team. And though my words and opinions may be assailing those who have entrenched themselves in the current model, I am NOT campaigning against any individual(s). The reason why Mods were brought in is because Sean was so absent that noone had any power to enforce actions against offenders of basic forum rules. Pre-moderation everyone could say anything damn thing they wanted without any restrictions (and they did). But what also was happening was that ALL moderation discussion was also openly being discussed as well. All thoughts and opinions were on the table open for everyone. Now we have an autocratic model where the Mod Team is appointed rather than being voted in, members don't have any power to hold Mods accountable, Mods have the power of censorship and suspension of all members, and all the Moderation Discussion is secluded away in a hidden forum. We have gone from one extreme to the other. What I am saying is, "Let's bring that swinging pendulum back in the direction of libertarianism". Not all the way mind you. But at least back in the direction of having all forum discussion (including moderation discussion) open and freely available to all members WITH a Mod Team that can take the appropriate and timely action. Now some might say that it would take longer to make moderation action. And it is true that it might take longer for a decision to suspend a member to be made (and I think this would be a good thing). However, the act of starting a moderation discussion in the proposed Moderation Forum actual IS a moderation action in itself. If a report is made, or if a mod spots a possible violation, or if members spot a possible violation, straight away a topic is made in the Moderation Forum and then everyone can see that something is "being done" about it straight away. If only one Mod is available at the time he/she can express his/her wisdom and experience in the matter and make recommendations. Then ANY member can also contribute their thoughts and feelings. So what if it gets hot and raucous at times, let people express themselves as they feel (unless of course they start slinging unnecessary insults). Let all members have the right to feel a part of it. If they feel interested or concerned about the matter, let them speak. Let them be heard. It will give people a sense of ownership. People will get to hear all the thoughts and perspectives going on which means people will understand properly the moderation decisions being made, and I can promise you that it will completely abolish the us vs them attitude against the Mod Team.

Thank you dawei for taking the time to consider my ramblings thoughtfully. You have raised some important issues to discuss. 1. Lynch-mobbing against some members; What, you mean lynch-mobbing isn't already happening? It will inevitably happen. One member might take objection to a the conversation of a group of members and jump in and say something about it. Then the group turns on the individual, posts up a moderation topic in the said Moderation Forum and, because they have the majority vote, they try and enforce action on the individual. Well firstly I will trust that fact that other mature members will see this and pitch in, thus preventing the majority enforcement. Secondly, it would be the responsibility of existing Moderators to make sure the minority voice doesn't get minoritized. So yes this still means that I support the idea of having a Mod Team but their roles and delegations would be different. They would be facilitators of the moderation discussion, helping and guiding conversation to reach some sort of member generated consensus. They would be advocates for each individual to make sure everyone's voice is heard properly and that lynch-mobbing doesn't occur. They would be participants in the discussions sharing their views on what could/should be done and contributing their valuable experience from previous incidences. And of course they would respond to member-consensus by being enforcers of moderation actions. 2. Trolls which just refuse to go away since there is not rule to ban them. Actually I am not advocating this at all. Because what would happen is that the members in the relevant topics/forums would either hit the Report Button for a Mod to create a Moderation Topic about the Troll, or they would create their own topic. Thus the Mod discussion is initiated and actions enforced as per normal. 3. Controlling the flamming in the sense that it has to get moved out of the general area and then let them go somewhere select to continue it; if two people actually want to continue it in another place, they deserve each other. Well this is where the Moderation Forum comes into play, because we/mods do our best to redirect it into the relevant topic in the Mod Forum. There they can duke it out but with the presence of Mods and other members who are interested/concerned enough about it doing their thing. 4. But what if they refuse to stop the flamming in the general area. The general areas are for the general members and one bad apple can spoil the pie. So it can be a delicate balance of allowing someone the freedom to be an A-hole but you spoil the forum experience for several dozen who have to endure this; and some may be turned away due to such people. Well that's already happening now. Under the modeling I am suggesting, no doubt a Mod Topic would have been started about it and no doubt members would have voiced their concern and no doubt someone would say "This A-hole" needs to take a xyz-day break which just follows that the Mod Team uses the enforcer powers. 5. I've seen examples of this kind of 'freedom' in posting and it can almost shut down a forum due to one or two who refuse to be there in the expressed idea of what a discussion forum represents. The 'Way' allows that there is diversity in every species and some are naturally A-holes; I am not trying to change their nature but I have seen it almost ruin boards. This goes back to #2, in that I am not advocating "no moderation", but instead that all moderation discussion be made open and available to all members. Of course mods would be probably the main or most frequent ones discussing as well as trying to divert the dialogue of relevant members into the appropriate topic, but all members should have the equal freedom to participate in moderation discussion. Again, in case any of my previous comments have given the wrong impression, I am NOT trying to abolish the Mod Team. And though my words and opinions may be assailing those who have entrenched themselves in the current model, I am NOT campaigning against any individual(s). The reason why Mods were brought in is because Sean was so absent that noone had any power to enforce actions against offenders of basic forum rules. Pre-moderation everyone could say anything damn thing they wanted without any restrictions (and they did). But the what also was happening was that ALL moderation discussion was also openly being discussed as well. All thoughts and opinions were on the table open for everyone. Now we have an autocratic model where the Mod Team is appointed rather than being voted in, members don't have any power to hold Mods accountable, Mods have the power of censorship and suspension of all members, and all the Moderation Discussion is secluded away in a hidden forum. We have gone from one extreme to the other. What I am saying is, "Let's bring that swinging pendulum back in the direction of libertarianism". Not all the way mind you. But at least back in the direction of having all forum discussion (including moderation discussion) open and freely available to all members WITH a Mod Team that can take the appropriate and timely action. Now some might say that it would take longer to make moderation action. And it is true that it might take longer for a decision to suspend a member to be made (and I think this would be a good thing). However, the act of starting a moderation discussion in the proposed Moderation Forum actual IS a moderation action in itself. If a report is made, or if a mod spots a possible violation, or if members spot a possible violation, straight away a topic is made in the Moderation Forum and then everyone can see that something is "being done" about it straight away. If only one Mod is available at the time he/she can express his/her wisdom and experience in the matter and make recommendations. Then ANY member can also contribute their thoughts and feelings. So what if it gets hot and raucous at times, let people express themselves as they feel (unless of course they start slinging unnecessary insults). Let all members have the right to feel a part of it. If they feel interested or concerned about the matter, let them speak. Let them be heard. It will give people a sense of ownership. People will get to hear all the thoughts and perspectives going on which means people will understand properly the moderation decisions being made, and I can promise you that it will completely abolish the us vs them attitude against the Mod Team.

Come now Mr Marbles, the water is warm, the martini's are free flowing, and the bikini-clad ladies are lounging by the pool. Don't hold out on us now, I KNOW you have thoughts on this

Actually no Mal, I gave up wondering why about this quite awhile ago. My wondering at the moment is why there is such a preference for your moderation discussions to be had only behind the closed doors of the Concierge Dungeon. My wondering at the moment is why is there such an attachment to a way of moderation that has shown it isn't working properly. My wondering at the moment is why are we subscribing to an autocratic model of community when Laozi is clearly guiding us to become more libertarian and free-spirited.

Bless you dawei !!

You are right of course, and I apologize. I have retracted the PM as I rightly should do. Thank you for keeping me from straying off the path.

EDITED: Retracted PM, as I rightly should, and offer an apology for posting it in the first place Steve, you said that you were disappointed with me. Well my "friend" I am disappointed that you sent me a PM rather than discuss this in the open. In it you are denying the forum the sharing of knowledge and ideas between members. In fact all moderators are robbing people of their words by having these secret discussions in the Concierge Dungeon. You folks are supposed to be the "elders" of the community but you are taking your wisdom behind locked closed doors, having your discussions (which everyone should be reading and thereby learning from), and the only thing we see is the slap down of your "judgments". And I am disappointed Steve that you are trying to read something into my actions beyond the sincerity of what I am presenting. You are basically accusing me of being a revengeful pouting child. Thank you very much for your condescension and your patronization [/sarcasm]. And I am disappointed Steve that you would say this: Because this is what you believe you are supporting the idea of an autocratic moderation team that regards the general membership as irresponsible, manipulative adolescences. Guess what though Steve? The more you treat people that way the more they will act that way. Which will then apparently justify the autocratic model, and the dysfunctional cycle perpetuates itself. Quote: The social environment of a community manipulates the behavior of those in that community. Now I want to make a really clear point here ... I am not specifically fighting "against" the Mod Team, even though it may seem that way. I am fight FOR free-spirited libertarianism, I am fighting FOR the basic human right to be self-determined. I am highlighting the ideal presented by Laozi and showing that, in comparison, the autocracy of the TaoBum Mod Team is a violation of human liberty. But ever my focus is on trying to discover ways, means, and processes to achieve Laozi's libertarianism.

In a continued effort to get moderation more into the hands of the general membership I am publicly reporting tulku and requesting immediate suspension. http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20435-true-love-can-only-exist-without-lust-for-enlightenment/page__view__findpost__p__290137

tulku, if you were having this discussion via PM or via your personal practice forums than yes it would have been considered a private conversation. But matey you were having it on an OPEN PUBLIC FORUM. Thus the contents, whether you like it or not is the business of everyone on the forum. Whilst it is your right to speak freely, if it threatens harm than I will exercise my right to speak my mind about it and demand that we exercise whatever enforcement at our disposal to moderate your speech.

This would be an excellent move in the right direction.

If there was to be a compromise made it would be this:

You just don't get it do you Mal? It's the WAY moderation is being run that's the issue. You are violating my right to be self-determined. You are denying our ability to work it our ourselves. THAT is a crime against our humanity. The further you entrench yourselves in this autocratic model the further you are going to move away from the libertarian spirit of Laozi. And, on a forum "supposedly" all about Daoist living, that is hypocrisy to the extreme. You are sending out a clear message that, "Yeah we talk about it, but we don't really believe it enough to live it." Seriously??? The more you defend and support the doctrine of autocracy the more you are saying Laozi and Zhuangzi are just idealistic idiots.