|Message #13044 of 13056|
|At 06:26 AM 3/26/07,
>Now, as to cross-posting noby's messages, I still have to wonder ... >if noby is not allowed to post his own messages here, why should it be >okay for Kumari to cross-post noby's messages??? Kumari has made it >plain that she does not agree with the banning of noby here, and so >she posts noby's messages here herself. I'm confused. Does that not >seem just a bit 'wrong' to anyone else here? Am I being unreasonable >or illogical? No, I'm not, but I have somehow become the one who is >'wrong' here in expressing my own feelings to Kumari that I find her >cross-posting of noby's messages to be just a bit over the wall in the >pushy department.
|It IS over the top, BUT . . .
I enjoyed Satrakshita's nuanced, balanced response.
As one who has been slagged by noby and his claque possibly more than anyone, i couldn't agree more that Kumari should not be X-posting his crap here. Nevertheless, this one post of his was noby in his heart, and in itself not objectionable. The problem -- or one of the problems -- with him
is that he uses these (rarish) sharing posts to wedge his way in, as in, "See, he's not so bad, he has feelings, he is not always a jerk," etc.
In view of that, i make it a rule in LO about not forwarding any of his material, as even the "positive" material is usually in the service of the wedge agenda. But here, Sats' nuanced ruleless approach seems valid. It doesn't have to work for everyone.
If i may venture to speculate . . . you chafe at rules at times but want to insist on them in this case. We all understand that consistency is not the highest value, so when consistency is being insisted on -- for what else can a "rule" be? -- it's good grist, yes?
I try to avoid rules in most cases, preferring Sats' route, but i have had so much trouble with noby that a rule for him seems appropriate at least in LO.
In the heyday of negativity in the old sannyas list, some people used to ask / insist on me spelling out rules. Tarika was one of the most insistent. (Not that i was targeting her.) Perhaps it was a way of trying to nail me, expose my inconsistencies or hypocrisy. Or perhaps it was insecurity-based, that without firm clear rules it would all be moderator whim / tyranny.
Dancing with rules. I am glad we have matured a bit from those days.