Disinformation campaign

[Stigweard]

Really?

 

He supports you attacking another with personal insults so he is able to see things clearly?

 

To my mind, this is like making calls for a witch hunt, and then congratulating all those who join one for their level headedness and general good nature. We could add to the "Time for some shit !" thread: "Witch Hunter: As long as you join me in violence, then your shit smells good to me!"

 

I have interacted with Vmarco on this forum in a relatively in-depth manner, and though his views are rather different from mine in several areas, and though he has his own sort of unrecognized or justified violence, he also has something to share, however ungracefully. When people jump on the bandwagon in an attempt to completely marginalize him, I find this ugly. To attempt to completely marginalize those who disagree with us is just a really old social trick, and it doesn't matter what ideology is being used to support it.

 

I am engaging in a bit of this, by joining my voice with 5ET, in an attempt to give more support for the view that it is not good to form cliques and to strong arm dissenting voices instead of engaging them or ignoring them (which is the best option in my mind, when engagement has no satisfactory conclusion). We could be perceived as forming a clique to quiet this sort of activity.

 

However, I do not view CaoTao or Sunya or others who have joined in the attack as inherently bad people, who should be marginalized or considered less that worthy. I am not calling for their ouster, though I feel that in the context of how this forum has been moderated, that there should be consequences to CaoTao's hateful personal insults directed toward Simplicity Rules. Going back to a less hands on moderation approach, allowing the members to handle things themselves (hopefully via engagement and ignoring, but not through hateful violence) might be great, but to have inconsistent moderation is much worse, in my mind, than more, but consistent moderation.

 

I mainly hope that we can stop seeing ourselves as above simple social dynamics, because our philosophy and practice is so subtle and so profound, so that we recognize impulses to engage in this sort of animalistic (with the very human twist of concepts and language) violence and perhaps let it go to allow something unexpected and helpful to flower.

This is a worthy point, very worthy indeed.

 

[fiveelementtao]

I belong to the camp of agnostic Buddhists that hold Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs in very high esteem. Along with millions of others, I subscribe to the idea that the Buddha's teachings make no demands on the reasoning powers of spiritual seekers.

I agree based on my very limited understanding. I guess my understanding isn't necessarily limited, I just don't subscribe to some of the more intellectual strains of buddhism. (OK if others do...)

 

I actually like alot of buddhism. Much of Tibetan buddhism, (to my untrained eye) resembles the Tantric Hindu roots it sprang from. I really like tantric hindu shamanism, so I have no axe to grind against the religion itself... Where I get lost is all the emphasis on achieving enlightenment and dependent origination and all that other stuff that just loses me in the first few seconds. I really can't judge it, because I honestly don't understand it and quite frankly don't want to.

 

My first and only knowledge of buddhism comes from the Fire sermon. I get that. In there Buddha specifically states that he has no interest in teaching the nature of the soul or life after death etc.. He says that the only thing that he teaches is that Attachment Causes Suffering and nothing else. So, I do find it confusing that some organized buddhists sects teach so much stuff on the nature of the self, enlightenment and the after-life. That seems to go in direct opposition to the fire sermon.

 

To each his own I suppose...

 

IF I were to call myself a buddhist, I would probably have to call it "Fire Sermon Buddhism" or something. Because based on what I read there, I can be a buddhist while practicing any other religion I choose since, that sermon said nothing about anything except that attachment causes pain and if you want to be happy, seek to reduce and eliminate attachment. As I see it, just about every religion has that same goal. From that sermon, Buddha seemed to be more psychotherapist than religious leader...

[Stigweard]

Let's talk about Disinformation. Because there is alot of it going on here right now.

 

I have not seen ANY religion bashing by anyone. I have seen some healthy albeit harsh criticism by self-proclaimed buddhists of the application of certain doctrines within that religion. I have seen buddhists strongly identify themselves personally with their religion and who seem to be extremely attached to their own interpretations of that religion who can't seem to tell where their personal identities end and their particular brand of that religion begins who speak as though anyone who criticizes their understanding or application of that belief is somehow attacking an entire religion and marginalizing peoples religious rights.

 

I have recently heard about "gangs" of buddhists running around this forum. I never saw that before because I had no interest in buddhism. Yes, I encountered the rare hyper intellectual buddhist from time to time who wanted to drag me into intellectual nonsense debates, but I merely would say, "no thank you" or put them on ignore and go my merry way. I saw what appeared to be taoists complaining about buddhist absolutism and self-superiority, but I just took that in stride as the actions of a few religionists. But now I am seeing what appears to be a buddhist gang in action. I am seeing what appears to be fellow buddhists acting in a concerted manner to "show someone the door" for, and I am quoting here..."never having any endearing moments" and for "having a condescending attitude." Which seems to apply to alot of people including some buddhists. I am seeing what appear to be buddhists rallying around each other to protect and justify aggressive hostile behavior because it suits their particular agenda. I am seeing what appears to be buddhists who believe that simply by the nature of their religion, they deserve to be treated differently and have the right to break rules that they wish to apply very harshly to others.

 

I am seeing with my eyes once again why I do not identify with any organized religion. Thank you for that...

 

I would like to believe that if I were a Buddhist and even if someone whom emotionally I related to was caught in a moment of semi-justified defensive anger calling another forum member (and apparently a fellow buddhist) an "asslicker" I hope that I would have the objectivity as a buddhist to call foul on it.

 

I find it so incredibly ironic that the religions that preach the most about love, tolerance, forgiveness, equality and patience have members within that religion who seem to have more difficulty applying those values that they preach than those who do not.

 

I would just like to publicly say that I do not believe that any religion has the right to be treated preferentially on this forum or anywhere else. And as long as rules are being applied and enforced to forum behavior I would like to propose that along with prohibiting insults and attacks against religions, I submit that we also prohibit the preferential treatment of any religion over another and make it permissible to have the right for anyone to dissent and criticize any religion if they choose without it being classified as "hate". There is a difference between religious dissent, criticism and religious persecution...

 

Just to be clear, I am not in any way attacking any religion, I am however criticizing the behavior of some people who happen to be religious. I hope that distinction is not lost on anyone...

 

This has been very entertaining and informative. I couldn't have written the script better myself if I had tried...

 

BTW, thanks to Mods for making an appearance...

Another post worthy of consideration.

[Immortal4life]

So like....when is Non coming back?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Let's talk about Disinformation. Because there is alot of it going on here right now.

 

I have not seen ANY religion bashing by anyone. I have seen some healthy albeit harsh criticism by self-proclaimed buddhists of the application of certain doctrines within that religion.

 

 

Why don't we start with his first comment in the Chritianity, Buddhism, Taoism thread:

 

"I would say most people who study the Abrahamic religions, that is, discern the holy books of theo-belief systems critically, rather than deliberating on them solely for display and devotion (Devotional reading is not Bible study), would agree with Gore Vidal, who said "I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."

 

Then he goes on to quote the most right wing fascist type of so called Christians to prove his point, as if they represented the whole religion, and that every Christian holds the beliefs of these wackos.

 

Pure BS, half truths put across as if they were the whole picture and all of it meant to trash another religion.

 

This is how you seem to be arguing as well. It's easy to mislead when you're the only one presenting the facts, which is why it's so frustrating to have people around that love to do this, because then others are forced to choose between watching a bunch of people get fed some BS messages, or to waste their time like I'm doing now to bring in the rest of the story. This is not what people came here for, and you might have noticed that most of the actual Taoists and cultivators have disappeared due to all this nonsense becoming the modus operandi of the conversations. Blatant attacks like the one's Vmarco loves to make are what makes this place shit, and everybody needs to see that if they don't already, anti-religionists, sexists, as well as Buddhists, Christians, or anyone who thinks their supposed superior views allow them to piss on something and act like they're sharing.

 

Personally, I had already put Vmarco on ignore before he got suspended, so I was prepared to let it roll, but now people are trying to get other people banned for petty nothings, so I'm trying to do my part since I have enjoyed this site for some time now and would like it attract real cultivators who likely won't have time for interacting with people who just want to revel in causing a ruckus.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Todd]

A post-facto observation. When he was around, I never called him anything except a troll, which was after he acted in that manner to begin with.

 

 

 

Ok, so classifying the man as a loon, is an empirical observation, not a sweeping judgement or an insult. Its one of those self-evident truths. And besides, even if its an insult, its alright, because the guy is already gone, and you never insulted him before (except by calling him a troll, which he self-evidently was).

 

Hmmm....

 

In your second post to Vmarco, before he had said anything directly to you, you said:

 

"You seem very intelligent, but you're very off the mark about a lot of things, and some of your ideas sound paranoid. No offense, but have you/do you do drugs?"

Calling someone's idea's paranoid, without mentioning specifics, and then asking if they do/have done drugs is pretty insulting. The implication is that the man's ideas are all questionable, since his brain is affected by past/present drug use. Prefacing it with "You seem very intelligent" and "No offence" does not change that.

 

What kind of a tone does this set for an interaction?

 

Does continuing to respond when you predictably get a negative response to this way of introducing yourself, and then calling for the man's removal from the forum, based on his negative response to you, not constitute an attack?

 

Of course not. He actually was all of the things that you accused him of, self-evidently so, especially since he accused you of some things too. Is this really how you think?

 

And even if you are right, and he really is those things that you choose to see him as, is it a compassionate response to stick him with those labels and basically try to rob him of all value in your mind and in the minds of others?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Todd

[Mal]

What a nice sleep

 

If anything a 13 page thread (well it was when I started typing) 14 page thread with vastly different points of view might help point to exactly how difficult it is to moderate TTB. But everyone knows that

 

That’s why, no matter what the moderation action, there will always be people who fit somewhere on

 

Strongly disagree - Disagree - Don’t care - Agree - Strongly Agree

 

 

An example in this thread.

 

CowTao. Perhaps the only public thing that people see is my little message.

 

What you don’t see

 

• the reports (yes there are more than the one from last night now, not everyone is online at one time.)

 

• The pm from another moderator to CowTow (which we know hasn’t been read yet as he has not come back online. Some things can’t happen instantly)

 

• Another moderators message in the post.

 

• And the moderators discussion about the issue.

 

 

Now there are other, rather nasty IMO, posts here too. Are people just ribbing each other or it is serious? I can’t tell from the text. But there are no reports on many of them, so there really isn’t any justification for me or another mod to jump in and do something about it. Other posts have reports, so we have a better idea how people feel about that, and we are PM those posters.

 

When we are not sure we go with - do nothing.

Sometimes we prefer non public action via PM

Sometimes it's an in thread message.

Sometimes it's a posting suspension.

 

 

I’m sure that makes us mods look inconsistent.

I’m sure that makes us mods look like we play favourites.

 

All we are trying to do is run a discussion forum where people can DISCUS with each other.

 

Rather than a huge list of rules all we ask, before you hit post, is to-

 

Treat other members with respect. No personal attacks.

[fiveelementtao]

Why don't we start with his first comment in the Chritianity, Buddhism, Taoism thread:

 

"I would say most people who study the Abrahamic religions, that is, discern the holy books of theo-belief systems critically, rather than deliberating on them solely for display and devotion (Devotional reading is not Bible study), would agree with Gore Vidal, who said "I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."

I find nothing wrong whatsoever with that statement. I personally agree with it wholeheartedly, but even if I didn't.. He clearly states that it is only his opinion when states, "I would say (certain people)... would agree with Gore Vidal... (when he says)" Which means he is sharing a statement of Gore Vidal concerning monotheism that he agrees with. That is not an attack upon religion or monotheism. He is saying that in his opinion, people who do not study religion critically and only act out of unreasoned emotion can be very destructive. If I state that I also think that monotheism has done considerable damage to society, am I attacking monotheists? No, I am a student of Jesus. He is making the argument for objective reasoning in regards to religion. I cannot agree more. You are starting to convince me that Vmarco may be a very smart guy...

 

Pure BS

in YOUR opinion. But now you are being absolutist. Had you stated, "This is pure BS in my opinion." No one can argue with that because you are free to have any opinion you want. But you cannot prove that his statement is categorically BS. I'm sorry, my friend but the only thing you are doing (for me personally, I can't speak for anyone else) is confirming for me that your personal agenda has been threatened and is influencing your ability to think objectively. Is that an attack? That's my experience of you...

 

I am glad you keep wanting to defend yourself because it gives an opportunity to some research into critical thinking in regards to stating opinions experiences and how that differs from insults and attacks...

 

I have to say that I find your reasoning lacking in critical thinking. Now, does that offend you? I have not insulted you by saying "You are not a critical thinker." I am sure that in most instances you are. However, in this instance my experience of you is that your statements are not reflecting an attitude of critical thinking. You are free to disagree with that. You are free to be offended by my experience of you. But you cannot accuse me of attacking or insulting you...

 

people who just want to revel in causing a ruckus.

It's all a matter of perspective. I am more than happy to let this go as I have said my peace. But, until my interest in this discussion wanes and you want to keep trying to force me to see things your way, I will point out any fallacious reasoning you care to volunteer. You have suggested I am maliciously causing a ruckus. I see it differently. I am engaging in a reasoned discussion about my perception of some behaviors that I believe are a possible threat to this forum. You are free to see it differently. And you are free to say so. But just because I disagree with you does not by it's nature mean that I am here to cause trouble.

 

Why don't we start with his first comment in the Chritianity, Buddhism, Taoism thread:

 

"I would say most people who study the Abrahamic religions, that is, discern the holy books of theo-belief systems critically, rather than deliberating on them solely for display and devotion (Devotional reading is not Bible study), would agree with Gore Vidal, who said "I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."

 

Then he goes on to quote the most right wing fascist type of so called Christians to prove his point, as if they represented the whole religion, and that every Christian holds the beliefs of these wackos.

 

Pure BS, half truths put across as if they were the whole picture and all of it meant to trash another religion.

 

This is how you seem to be arguing as well. It's easy to mislead when you're the only one presenting the facts, which is why it's so frustrating to have people around that love to do this, because then others are forced to choose between watching a bunch of people get fed some BS messages, or to waste their time like I'm doing now to bring in the rest of the story. This is not what people came here for, and you might have noticed that most of the actual Taoists and cultivators have disappeared due to all this nonsense becoming the modus operandi of the conversations. Blatant attacks like the one's Vmarco loves to make are what makes this place shit, and everybody needs to see that if they don't already, anti-religionists, sexists, as well as Buddhists, Christians, or anyone who thinks their supposed superior views allow them to piss on something and act like they're sharing.

 

Personally, I had already put Vmarco on ignore before he got suspended, so I was prepared to let it roll, but now people are trying to get other people banned for petty nothings, so I'm trying to do my part since I have enjoyed this site for some time now and would like it attract real cultivators who likely won't have time for interacting with people who just want to revel in causing a ruckus.

Edited August 18, 2011 by fiveelementtao

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Thing is, even if you agree with what he said, and I'm not totally against it in every way, that doesn't change the nature of what he said, which was contentiously bashing religions and which is bound to result in nothing but a continual shit show like we're having now.

 

And you apparently missed the rest of the sentence calling BS -- stating the reason it was BS.

 

Anyway, once again, I'm debating with someone who only debates the points he has anything to stand against, while acting like he holds the entire truth.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Sunya]

Ok, so classifying the man as a loon, is an empirical observation, not a sweeping judgement or an insult. Its one of those self-evident truths. And besides, even if its an insult, its alright, because the guy is already gone, and you never insulted him before (except by calling him a troll, which he self-evidently was).

 

Hmmm....

 

In your second post to Vmarco, before he had said anything directly to you, you said:

 

"You seem very intelligent, but you're very off the mark about a lot of things, and some of your ideas sound paranoid. No offense, but have you/do you do drugs?"

Calling someone's idea's paranoid, without mentioning specifics, and then asking if they do/have done drugs is pretty insulting. The implication is that the man's ideas are all questionable, since his brain is affected by past/present drug use. Prefacing it with "You seem very intelligent" and "No offence" does not change that.

 

What kind of a tone does this set for an interaction?

 

You call that an insult? My you are sensitive, lol. His posts about Buddhism are indeed off the mark, and indeed his ideas do sound paranoid, specifically in that thread where he said that all lineages and teachers are wrong and only he understands what Buddhism is truly about. That right there is a paranoid thought. The definition of paranoia is someone who is extremely mistrustful and suspicious. Also, me asking him if he does drugs was an honest question. Many druggies act like he does, with extreme mistrust of others and an arrogance in their own thoughts. What I said wasn't objective nor definitive, but certainly not insulting, and certainly nothing I said deserved the responses I received.

 

Also, I already saw how he interacted with others and how others, no matter how respectful, were treated with utter disrespect by him. Thus I saw no reason to set a good tone for discussion, knowing that whatever I say, since I'm disagreeing with him, will be knocked down. Maybe I should've stayed away. I won't deny that. But I won't admit what you're implying, which is that how he acted was my fault. No, sir.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Sunya

[Aetherous]

My you are sensitive, lol.

 

That's an insult right there Mr. SUNYA.

[Sunya]

That's an insult right there Mr. SUNYA.

 

Scotty, don't make me ban you. My enlightenment has given me mod powers.

[Marblehead]

I'll be glad when Vmarco's time is up so he can respond to some of the things that are being said about him. (But I sure hope he does it wisely.)

Edited August 18, 2011 by Marblehead

[Aetherous]

Sunya,

 

Don't make me fly to your house in my illusory body, and show you my white drop of bliss.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Scotty

[Todd]

You call that an insult?

 

Ok, calling someone a loon isn't an insult. Asking if someone does drugs with the implication that their thoughts are suspect is not an insult. Calling someone's ideas paranoid isn't an insult.

 

Lets go with personal attack. Personal means relating to a particular person. Attack has a definition "to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse." It seems that the emphasis is on intent.

 

What was your intent in making your statements? Were you not trying to discredit him, and by extension what he was saying?

 

he said ... only he understands what Buddhism is truly about.

 

Where did he say this?

Also, I already saw how he interacted with others and how others, no matter how respectful, were treated with utter disrespect by him.

He treated me with respect and I consistently disagreed with him.

 

But I won't admit what you're implying, which is that how he acted was my fault. No, sir.

 

 

How he acted was not your fault. How he acted was influenced by you. Was it influenced for the better or for the worse?

 

 

[Sunya]

Where did he say this?

 

Maybe you should read the whole thread before passing judgment? He calls himself a freethinking Buddhist because all lineages are "polluted."

 

What was your intent in making your statements? Were you not trying to discredit him, and by extension what he was saying?

 

How he acted was not your fault. How he acted was influenced by you. Was it influenced for the better or for the worse?

 

Ok Todd, you win! Congratulations. That's what you want, right? You're getting a bit obsessive here. It's all just drama. Chill out, eh? I'm really not interested in arguing with you. If you have a problem, take it up with the mods. Maybe they'll add a new rule just for you: always post with proper intent! That'll be fun to enforce.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Sunya

[fiveelementtao]

Thing is, even if you agree with what he said, and I'm not totally against it in every way, that doesn't change the nature of what he said, which was contentiously bashing religions and which is bound to result in nothing but a continual shit show like we're having now.

 

I saw no such thing in the quote given to me. You may have gotten that feeling from it. (from what I was shown) I did not. This again is a great example of what I have already said that it seems to me people were getting a vibe they didn't like and then projecting onto his words in order to justify that vibe.

 

And you apparently missed the rest of the sentence calling BS -- stating the reason it was BS.

Nope I got it. I just don't agree with your assessment of it.

Then he goes on to quote the most right wing fascist type of so called Christians to prove his point, as if they represented the whole religion, and that every Christian holds the beliefs of these wackos.

"As if" is YOUR interpretation of what he said. But, where does he actually say that? Quoting people to prove a point is not abusive. If those people he quoted said horrible things and they were representing themselves as Christians, then he has some verifiable evidence for his claims whatever they are. Now, if he personally accused YOU of being an evil christian, then you would have a right to accuse him of attacking you. BUt the question is if he was quoting people who you are accusing of being "wackos" (insult), then why are you taking it so personally. If you are not one of those wackos, why are you not able to separate yourself from them and have some compassion for the fact that many people have been hurt by those "wackos" and it has influenced their thinking against Christianity. If you are not one of those people perhaps a more tolerant viewpoint would help people like him to heal from whatever harm as been done to him in the name of Christianity.

 

So, If what you are trying to do is PROVE to me that vMarco was abusive, then you need to bring me more evidence than just how you felt. I won't accept your personal feelings as fact.

 

Anyway, once again, I'm debating with someone who only debates the points he has anything to stand against, while acting like he holds the entire truth.

 

Here's another good example. You say you don't like it when people make assumptive statements about you. Yet, you are making an absolutist judgemental statement about me and my thinking based only on your feeling of me. Not on my actions. This is bordering on being an insult. (Well it is an insult, but I'll live.) "if you said, " I feel like I'm talking to someone that thinks he holds the entire truth." that would be OK because that is your feeling and I couldn't argue that. But as you just stated it, as a fact, I won't lie, I was initially hurt by that and started to get mad. I am hoping that was not your intention...

 

Listen, I get it that this guy said some things that you felt were a threat to your spirituality. I get it that you probably feel very strongly about your chosen spiritual path and you don't like it when the things poeple do make you feel disempowered. I empathize with you. But I believe people have the right to their own opinons and experiences. IMO, as long as someone, however annoyingly is able to intelligently express their opinions and own them, they have a right to do so. Just because you or I don't like it, is not enough to ambush them...

 

So, I disagree with you on this. But, I have lost interest in arguing with you guys any further about it. And it is clear that you are becoming frustrated with me and I am finding your statements to start to be hurtful and abusive to me..... So, I am going to put you on the ignore function. Nothing personal. We have both spoken our peace and it's time for me to move on. I wish you luck my friend

Edited August 19, 2011 by fiveelementtao

[Todd]

Maybe you should read the whole thread before passing judgment? He calls himself a freethinking Buddhist because all lineages are "polluted."

 

I read the whole thread. I might have skipped some posts, but I'm pretty sure I read most if not all of his posts.

 

Does discounting certain lineages equal saying "only he understands what buddhism is truly about"? I was just wondering where he said this, if he said it.

 

Ok Todd, you win! Congratulations. That's what you want, right? You're getting a bit obsessive here. It's all just drama. Chill out, eh? I'm really not interested in arguing with you. If you have a problem, take it up with the mods. Maybe they'll add a new rule just for you: always post with proper intent! That'll be fun to enforce.

 

I was hoping you would see a pattern and hence have an opportunity to change it, if you so desired. One of the key patterns is not engaging the ideas that people present to you if you disagree with them, but making personal comments in an attempt to discredit them. For example, "You're getting a bit obsessive here." I don't have to look far to find examples. It is in practically every post in this thread, and I find it really interesting that you don't see it. If you have no interest in seeing such a pattern, and only want to see things as winning and losing, then that's fine. It is your right.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Todd

[Seth Ananda]

Let's talk about Disinformation. Because there is alot of it going on here right now.

 

I have not seen ANY religion bashing by anyone.

Then you are blind my friend.

 

Re read my 'three kinds of practice' thread. It is full of extreme Religious Intolerance.

 

 

You my friend have been anti Buddhist for a long time. It comes out in your posts.

 

So you are pretending Vmarco is a saint, siding with the other anti Buddhists and trying to get Buddhist members people kicked out for reacting to Vmarco and simplicity. That is very low behaviour.

 

 

Its Hilarious right now. A bunch of people who are sick of the 'Intellectual Buddhists' are ganging up on them, calling them 'Internet Bullies & thugs' all because they do not like the way conversations can go sometimes...

 

In general though these Buddhists act very well towards others, and have never ganged up on anyone. Sure Vajraji had his moments of thread invasion early on but on the whole its been much better. The Buddhists tend to stick to our own threads, which I could say get Invaded by Taoists. One thread on E%DO recently had a member excuse his behaviour there as 'hey, this is a Taoist forum' but yet it was in the General discussion area, not the Taoist discussion area.

 

The First BS point used is that we are all In on this together [us Buddhists that is]. that is Impossible as we argue ourselves over the finer points, and I myself only see Buddhism as the currently known 'Ultimate' practice and philosophy for me, my self. Not necessarily as 'Ultimate' for anyone else. Also several of us are dedicated to other practices as well.

This is simply enemy patterning, where a group points at another assortment of people and labels them 'An organised threat, dedicated to overturning our way of life, and who must be stopped'

This tactic works very well in the media to rally everyone on side. do I need to mention Nazi Germany, or the West in recent wars?

 

The Second BS point is that our alleged group of 'Buddhist bullies' ganged up on vmarco because he didn't share our views. BULLSHIT!

lots of us don't share views and it doesn't end up like this. Also many of our 'Buddhist Gang' don't share views with many of the non Buddhists, and have regular respectful conversations that enrich all parties. CowTao has been a Paragon on this level in the past.

Vmarco does not converse. That is the only problem. He is a Fanatic for his cause. He also says things like 'Buddha's first teachings were basically for people with retarded levels of Intelligence' Do you not see how denigrating that is. Entire traditions of Vipassna practitioners or even Saints, wiped off as Retards.

 

Put your self in the hot seat. Imagine him saying:

 

"I am the only one who understands anything about TAO or energy cultivation. You are a Retard. Your Chikung/Neikung is bullshit, you are a bullshit teacher, You are deluded, and your students are retarded. What the F@%K is viking chikung, you made that lame ass shit up, you half witted tard!"

 

That is what he did to the Buddhist people here.

 

This is what the people who are defending him are calling 'Vmarco is just a bit strong in his opinions.'

 

Part two of The Second BS Point Is that I myself would love to be able to converse with Vmarco and share Ideas. He is into things I also like, and I wish he were capable of communication, I really do. I actually still may buy his book if I keep struggling to get his strange and convoluted Idea system...

 

 

So as Far as a Disinformation campaign goes, there is one being run right now by anti Buddhists who use cheap psychological tactics, like lumping us all together as one creature, and Inferring evil qualities to that one creature to rally all the halfwits and rabble rousers who don't like us for what ever reason...

 

If you keep poking a monkey with a stick, [even a buddhist one] eventually you will get a reaction. That monkey was Vmarco, but now a bunch of low lives are shouting "look look, the monkey reacted! Ban the monkey!"

 

Anyway Seth, over.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Seth Ananda

[Seth Ananda]

I think the mods should take a careful read of my 'Three kinds of teachings' thread and see all the anti religion hate Vmarco spewed all over it, and consider banning him for longer, or giving him a sever warning about continuing to do so in the future...

 

I didn't complain back then but from now on every time he opens his mouth and lets out something Intolerant, I hit the report button.

[Informer]

Onoes, Vaj got banned too? How did that happen?

[fiveelementtao]

Wow.. Seth, bro... I see that you are having alot of feelings here... So, I will try to not take your aggression personally. So, please take a breath and try and read this without any defensiveness. I am not attacking you. I am merely sharing what I see in front of me... But this post of yours is only underscoring my point and further convincing me that my conclusions based on my observations may be accurate. Please, take a look at your communication here with me... Extremely agressive, very defensive and lots of accusations insults and "you" statements in there... such as...

 

Then you are blind my friend.

(insult. I could take offense at that but I won't)

You my friend have been anti Buddhist for a long time. It comes out in your posts.

(Not true. Unsubstantiated accusation. I may have said some things about my experience of buddhists, but that is my experience of a few isolated individuals not a statement against the religion.)

So you are pretending Vmarco is a saint

(another absolute statement that is not true. I never say that. In fact I say that I saw him to express himself arrogantly and with absolutism. That is not a saint)

 

Can you see how your behavior in this post to me is exactly what you accuse Vmarco of doing to you? I saw it then and I'm seeing it from you right now...

 

The First BS point used is that we are all In on this together

I never said that. I don't know who all the buddhists are... What I have said is that it appears to me that some buddhists have been acting in unison to defend a common agenda. and that it appears to me that some have been so emotionally reactive that they have not been thinking clearly. You are giving me this experience right now. You have not been representing my words or feelings accurately at all. In fact, I wonder if while you are reading this right now that you are feeling that as I write this that I am angry with you and trying to fight with you. I am not. I get it that you feel attacked by me. and I have warm feelings for you and wish you healing.

 

But I tell you with all honesty is that my observation is that in this post you are very emotionally reactive and seeking to defend your agenda at any cost and that I am feeling very personally attacked by you because of it. That IS my observation and you can be offended if you like, but I cannot deny that is what I am seeing right now. And I'm not going to change my observations just because it might offend you.

 

The Second BS point is that our alleged group of 'Buddhist bullies' ganged up on vmarco because he didn't share our views. BULLSHIT!

I believed you until I actually looked at some of the threads in greater detail. And what I said is that what I observed was that it looked that way to me. I am very sorry if my observation causes you personal offense. It was not and is not meant as such. I don't really know why you are personally feeling attacked since I did not mention anyone by name. I never mentioned you in regards to that. So, I don't know why you are feeling the need to defend yourself here. But I saw what I saw... So, should I lie just to gain your approval Seth? or should I not speak out about something just because it might make you angry? Should I be afraid that sharing my observations as I see them might cause you to attack me personally and insult me by calling me blind or give you another opportunity to mock my spirituality?...

 

I just want to point out another observation. This post here sounds exactly like the sarcastic post from Simplicity rules where I believe he was mocking you. I am not mocking you now, but I am going to quote the first lines from each of your posts to show you how similar they are

 

Five, You have completely lost your mind.

(SR)

Then you are blind my friend.

(SA)

 

And while SR was being very sarcastic, you are being totally serious... Sorry, but I see what I see...

 

Put your self in the hot seat. Imagine him saying:

"I am the only one who understands anything about TAO or energy cultivation. You are a Retard. Your Chikung/Neikung is bullshit, you are a bullshit teacher, You are deluded, and your students are retarded. What the F@%K is viking chikung, you made that lame ass shit up, you half witted tard!" That is what he did to the Buddhist people here.

I get it that you feel this way. But. Nope. I have not seen that he did anything this extreme or hurtful. You just did though...

 

If he or anyone said that to me, I would be deeply hurt and offended. But, he didn't say anything like that as far as I could tell. I get it that you feel that he spoke that way and I am happy to agree with you if anyone can produce any evidence that he actually said anything like that. But, I haven't seen any hard evidence and no one has shown me anything like it. I have only heard that people felt like he was talking that way. There is a difference. Listen, I have no agenda with this guy and this is my point. I have no agenda with his views one way or another. I would have no problem whatsoever kicking him out if I saw that he actually attacked people on a personal level. I didn't see it...sorry...

 

But I would like to point out that while you have said these extremely hurtful things about me in the 3rd person, under the guise of trying to prove your point it is difficult for me to think that you didn't at the very least want to say that to me to hurt me because you feel that I have attacked you. And again, I must say that you are proving my point. While this is not sufficient to warrant a complaint to mods. ( well actually it is but I won't in the interest of healing) I will put you on ignore also because I do find your behavior very aggressive, irrational and am deeply hurt by your tactic. Was that your intention? and based on your communication here, I have no evidence that you are able to have a reasonable disagreement when you are emotionally stimulated. So, for me, you are not a safe person to talk to and I need to ignore you for my own emotional well-being...

 

Once again I will ask the question: How is it that some people who proudly wear the banner of a religion that preaches non-attachment, compassion, forgiveness and love be so aggressive, defensive and hostile? As I said, I know little about buddhism but as I understand it, it is when your enemy is being the most aggressive that you are encouraged to show the most compassion. What you and others have said is that because Vmarco was so hurtful to you that you had every right to abandon your religious principles. I do find that ironic and in that instance I do see that as being hypocritical....

 

Peace to you Seth.

Edited August 19, 2011 by fiveelementtao

[Sunya]

I read the whole thread. I might have skipped some posts, but I'm pretty sure I read most if not all of his posts.

 

Does discounting certain lineages equal saying "only he understands what buddhism is truly about"? I was just wondering where he said this, if he said it.

 

Actually he said all lineages, not some. Maybe read the thread again about how all current lineages are "polluted" and just out for control or money. The only modern teacher he quoted was Osho, who was a psychopath cult leader deported from dozens of countries for fraud. That in itself should ring warning bells.

 

I was hoping you would see a pattern and hence have an opportunity to change it, if you so desired. One of the key patterns is not engaging the ideas that people present to you if you disagree with them, but making personal comments in an attempt to discredit them. For example, "You're getting a bit obsessive here." I don't have to look far to find examples. It is in practically every post in this thread, and I find it really interesting that you don't see it. If you have no interest in seeing such a pattern, and only want to see things as winning and losing, then that's fine. It is your right.

 

So the fact that I don't want to engage in your questionable inquiry into my actions is a "pattern" that you then transplant onto all my activities on this forum? Wow, man, you have a lot of nerve

 

I engage in ideas all the time here that I disagree with. I've actually learned A LOT from this forum and its members, and still do. The difference is that these members were conversing with me, not talking down to me in a hostile manner. Vmarco has an attitude that makes nobody want to converse with him. And the fact that you're defending him and railing on me with such obsession, and yes it does seem to me like you are obsessed, makes me wonder what your motives are.

 

What is your point exactly? That I disagreed with him? Well, duh. That's obvious. Is your point then that I should've been nicer to him from the get go? Perhaps, mother hen, perhaps, but I am not nice all the time nor do I have to be, and when someone acts like he does to other members in such a disparaging way, then I will not act nice to them either. But how he acted, which was beyond all self-moderation, was completely unwarranted even if my attitude was less than kind.

[Todd]

Actually he said all lineages, not some. Maybe read the thread again about how all current lineages are "polluted" and just out for control or money. The only modern teacher he quoted was Osho, who was a psychopath cult leader deported from dozens of countries for fraud. That in itself should ring warning bells.

 

I don't agree with a lot of what he says. However, he never said that only he knows what buddhism truly is. You used this as a reason for your actions toward him. Just pointing out that you are making up reasons. Buddhist lineages, even all buddhist lineages, are not everybody. Even saying they are polluted is not saying that no one in them truly knows buddhism.

 

So the fact that I don't want to engage in your questionable inquiry into my actions is a "pattern" that you then transplant onto all my activities on this forum? Wow, man, you have a lot of nerve

 

Actually, you did want to engage, until I made some points that you could not easily respond to, then you started with the pattern. If you don't believe me, then ask a few other people if they notice such a pattern, of not responding to points but attacking the messenger when you disagree and things get even slightly heated.

 

 

Vmarco has an attitude that makes nobody want to converse with him.

This is a tremendous exaggeration. Nobody is a pretty strong word. He is pretty darn ungraceful in his communication style, but nobody? There sure seemed to be a lot of people conversing with him, for somebody that nobody wants to converse with.

 

And the fact that you're defending him and railing on me with such obsession, and yes it does seem to me like you are obsessed, makes me wonder what your motives are.

 

 

Perhaps you could show me this obsession?

 

What is your point exactly? That I disagreed with him? Well, duh. That's obvious. Is your point then that I should've been nicer to him from the get go? Perhaps, mother hen, perhaps, but I am not nice all the time nor do I have to be, and when someone acts like he does to other members in such a disparaging way, then I will not act nice to them either. But how he acted, which was beyond all self-moderation, was completely unwarranted even if my attitude was less than kind.

 

 

That is your judgement and it has its outcomes. This conversation is one of those outcomes.

 

My point is that there is a better way. There is no should here. I can't control you, nor would I like to. I would like you to see things clearly, and to express that which is best in you as much as possible, but that's just a preference, and my idea of best could be very different from yours. I don't even want your idea to match mine, but I thought you could benefit from another perspective, especially given the fact that we started this conversation with you refusing to even see your actions with regard to Vmarco as an attack on another human being. To you they were justified, he is not really much of a human being, but a loon, and it isn't an attack when those things are true.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Todd

[Sunya]

I don't agree with a lot of what he says. However, he never said that only he knows what buddhism truly is. You used this as a reason for your actions toward him. Just pointing out that you are making up reasons. Buddhist lineages, even all buddhist lineages, are not everybody. Even saying they are polluted is not saying that no one in them truly knows buddhism.

 

First, yes he basically said all current Buddhist teachers are false. Again, go reread the thread since you care so much about this. Second, I'm not making up reasons, nor do I care enough to for your sake. The reasons for my actions were simple. I disagreed with much of his presentation, which prompted me to reply. I saw him disparaging others and acting like an arrogant twit, which prompted me to reply with a slight attitude which, compared to many other posts here, can hardly be seen as insulting. And for the millionth and last time, nothing I said deserved the attitude he gave me and others.

 

Actually, you did want to engage, until I made some points that you could not easily respond to, then you started with the pattern. If you don't believe me, then ask a few other people if they notice such a pattern, of not responding to points but attacking the messenger when you disagree and things get even slightly heated.

 

I've disagreed with plenty of people on here. For instance, me and Scotty disagree a lot. He actually thinks Buddhism is bullshit, and we get into heated debates often on AIM. But we never resort to insults and attacks and remain good friends. Why? Because he's actually interested in conversing, sharing points, learning, etc. as am I. Vmarco on the other hand does not have any such endearing qualities.

 

This has nothing to do with simply disagreeing with somebody. I responded to all your points, but now I find it annoying having to defend myself. I acted the way I did, and it's none of your concern really.

 

 

That is your judgement and it has its outcomes. This conversation is one of those outcomes.

 

No, this conversation comes from me having to (maybe foolishly) defend myself from someone who has decided to become obsessed with me and my intentions. Really, Todd, you must have better things to do with your time.

 

My point is that there is a better way. There is no should here. I can't control you, nor would I like to.

 

I doubt that.

 

I would like you to see things clearly, and to express that which is best in you as much as possible, but that's just a preference, and my idea of best could be very different from yours. I don't even want your idea to match mine, but I thought you could benefit from another perspective, especially given the fact that we started this conversation with you refusing to even see your actions with regard to Vmarco as an attack on another human being. To you they were justified, he is not really much of a human being, but a loon, and it isn't an attack when those things are true.

 

No, I did not attack another human being. Man, you need to lighten up. I never threatened the guy. I didn't even post with much hostility, anger, malice, and whatever I said can only be considered an attack if you're as sensitive as a nun.

 

I would appreciate it if you didn't try to show me your holier-than-thou perspective as I'm not really interested in it.