Hypocrisy

bananaporridge · Post by **bananaporridge** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:23 pm

So its ok to cause offence by calling well known and respected monks "stupid" as has been done just recently on another thread,or as with robertk's avatar.If nothing is done about these issues then the locking of 'tail chasing dogs' and the threat of suspension is utter hypocrisy and equally offensive in my opinion.

Digity · Post by **Digity** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:02 pm

Forums have rules. If you break them then you get warned and your post gets closed. It's that simple.

bananaporridge · Post by **bananaporridge** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:09 pm

No,obviously not that simple.I broke no rules and if you say I did,then these rules are being continually broken by others without any similar action being taken.

LXNDR · Post by **LXNDR** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:14 pm

i don't see any hypocrisy here

calling outsiders and unrelated people stupid is free speech and an opinion, calling some people you mingle with 'stupid' is an insult, as much as likening them to puppies, so it's different

but in neither case it is Right Speech

daverupa · Post by **daverupa** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:14 pm

Different moderators have different moderating tools, hierarchies, and priorities, which makes consistency a troublesome goal at which to aim. If you like, you can PM the moderator to ask them specific questions about the issue, or await commentary here.

bananaporridge · Post by **bananaporridge** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:30 pm

LXNDR,strange interpretation!I disagree.But thanks to you daverupa,you explain the issue very well.I posted robertk a pm already,but he hasn't replied.Perhaps he doesn't see how offensive his avatar is to some people!

perkele · Post by **perkele** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:45 pm

I also found the shutting down of that lighthearted tail-chasing-dog thread quite uncalled for.

For sure, forums have rules.
But who are the rulers of the moderators' sentiments?

When it is booze and an adverse attitude against dogs (the moderator in question here being a drunken cat) then I would indeed regard his calling as quite questionable.

Rulers ruling all things

And after looking at the thread which spurred the tail-chasing-dog thread I concur wholeheartedly with the usage of the term "fool" as very much appropriate in reference to the given situation. Sadhu! Sadhu! They are fools.

So who is fooling us here?

But as daverupa said:

daverupa wrote:Different moderators have different moderating tools, hierarchies, and priorities, which makes consistency a troublesome goal at which to aim. If you like, you can PM the moderator to ask them specific questions about the issue, or await commentary here.

It's for sure not easy, and quite certainly no one here without bias. Quite sure it's not willful hypocrisy. But foolish it can seem.

Mkoll · Post by **Mkoll** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:24 pm

perkele wrote:When it is booze and an adverse attitude against dogs (the moderator in question here being a drunken cat) then I would indeed regard his calling as quite questionable.

perkele · Post by **perkele** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:31 pm

Mkoll wrote:
perkele wrote:When it is booze and an adverse attitude against dogs (the moderator in question here being a drunken cat) then I would indeed regard his calling as quite questionable.

bananaporridge · Post by **bananaporridge** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:46 pm

Unfortunately the moderator has not responded to either of my two pm's to him.I have made a formal complaint to Mr.Snyder.I'll now add since this thread has been moved to suggestions, that I suggest the Mahavihara moderator change his avatar to something more appropriate for what he's supposed to be moderating on,which as I see it is abhidhamma not personal experience,thanks.

perkele · Post by **perkele** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:18 pm

perkele wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
perkele wrote:When it is booze and an adverse attitude against dogs (the moderator in question here being a drunken cat) then I would indeed regard his calling as quite questionable.

But the joking and smiling aside: the threat of suspension mentioned here to me seems very heavyhanded and I don't want to make light of this.

So no intention here to ridicule this legitimate complaint.

Just saw now:

Unfortunately the moderator has not responded to either of my two pm's to him.I have made a formal complaint to Mr.Snyder.

Maybe you should also consider that he may not have had much time. Patience, and with some time some come to deal with things.

Getting many involved not always helps getting things solved. Just some thoughts.

lyndon taylor · Post by **lyndon taylor** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:33 pm

What I've seen on several forums is some moderators set strict rules for members but don't seem to follow those rules themselves, call that what you may......

bananaporridge · Post by **bananaporridge** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:45 pm

Yes, even a brief note to indicate an acknowledgement by the relevant powers that be,until more time is found to deal with the complaint but sadly not.I'm patient-just the five hours so far!

lyndon taylor · Post by **lyndon taylor** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:48 pm

A lot of our moderators are Australian so its the middle of the night there, it often takes a day or so to get a reply, so not to fret.

bananaporridge · Post by **bananaporridge** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:22 pm

Well for the record,robertk according to the Board index page was still on line when I sent the first PM to him, twenty minutes after he locked the thread and issued the warning.Then after I sent a second three hours later,and then one to Mr.Snyder, I noted that they were both on line.Draw your own conclusions.

Dhamma Wheel

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy

Re: Hypocrisy