retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:16 pm
Censorship isn't strictly a state function. I suspect you're conflating ideas about "the first amendment" here. Staff govern this website, and in that capacity, may find it necessary to censor certain content in accordance with the Terms of Service.
Taking the broader definition of censorship, yes, it's what the TOS is intended to do, in part--put controls and limits on what people may say.
L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:12 pm
You have TOS, and you can decide the face of Buddhism which you choose to present here. So far, it has included disparagement of other faiths, and disparagement of individuals with whom you disagree.
You speak often of kamma. Do you believe kamma is "collective" or "individual"? If the Buddha taught it to be individual, why do you shift the goalposts to make it "collective"?
I have no idea why you are asking about my beliefs, as they are irrelevant to the Dhamma. However, kamma is one's personal volitional conduct. Your kamma is, as administrator, choosing not to prevent horrible comments such as those which have been expressed about Muhammed being a rapist etc. Such comments appear to violate TOS but are allowed. Meanwhile, you as DW admin feel very free to call people names and engage on a very personalized level to demean Members with whom you disagree.
My action (kamma) is to administer this forum, such that the Terms of Service are enforced. What other people say within those parameters is not "my" kamma, nor is it "our" kamma. I do not decide what other people say, and neither do you.
I never said other people's actions were your kamma. I don't know where you get that from.
L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
You hijacked this thread for the purpose of making personalized comments about me.
And you toss this accusation about like a rain cloud tossing down raindrops. Perhaps reviewing your reactions and sensitivities might be a more productive endeavour than trying to force the world to comply with your fussy sensibilities.
You keep saying that. But I have not tried to force anyone to comply with anything, fussy or otherwise. I consistently have said that I defer to those who provide an manage this forum, including you.
Of course you realize "your fussy sensibilities" is a personalized comment which may come across as an attempt to demean and provoke. This is the kind of statement which runs rampant here on DW, in part by virtue of what
you allow and what
you encourage by
your example on this forum devoted to discussion of Dhamma. I am not trying to stop you. It's your kamma to perform.
L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
I had assumed private reporting was confidential, and PMs were confidential.
Yet you "
publish" a PM from venerable Dhammanando, and then traipse it around, by making an extract from it your signature.
I did this following your example that such communications are not actually regarded as private. If you had not discussed my private communications, I would have understood that such discussions are in fact private and I would not have disclosed Bhante's comment about me. Besides, do you think Bhante Dhammanando has said anything unwise? I like the comment, because a good slap on the face can wake us all up. I don't see the issue.
Your hypocrisy and double-standards are laughable and are as clear as day, to anyone who has eyes to see.
More personalized comments.
retrofuturist wrote:Don't think your double-standards and hypocrisy will get you very far with me, mate.
L.N. wrote:More personalized comments.
It sounds like merely responding to you is a "personalized comment".
No, a "personalized comment" is when you play the person, not the ball. Or, if you can't understand PC speak, when you play the man, not the ball, as you prefer. This is precisely what you have been doing ever since you hijacked this Topic.
Good luck finding peace and happiness in life with that self-imposed burden hanging around your neck!
I have no idea what you are referring to or why you believe you are a fit judge of me, but peace and happiness lie in the Dhamma. I sincerely wish you peace and happiness (even though I understand this wish will be viewed as nothing more than my "hauteur and prissiness").
Metta
When you use this word "metta," I hope you mean it sincerely and not sarcastically. Do you understand what Metta means? It is not a synonym for "Sincerely yours" at the end of a letter.
I would appreciate if you could get back on Topic and play the ball, not the person.