2720Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Group FYI [Response to Leaf]
- Jul 3, 2007Prometheus and all members,This is a very good point to make concerning private emails! FYI, if a person is really all that concerned about whether a moderator edited or switched a poster's email or address once it gets approved, all one has to do is look at the post in question, to the right and below the date it will say: "Show message option". If you click the tiny arrow it will expand the area to show: "View Source", "Use Fixed Width Font", or "Unwrap Lines". Click the one that says "Show message". It will then open up the post at the left of the page, and before the actual message it will show who it is from, return path, Received.... Etc which for most people is hard to read let alone understand if you have no clue what you are looking for. Down toward the bottom of all that strange stuff you will see From, Subject, X-Yahoo-Group-Post: public or it might say member, if it says public, it means the person sending a post is not a member of the group. The last line will show: X-eGroups-Approved-By: either Prometheus or myself. It will also show if anything was edited, and by which moderator. This pertains to the message posted on ESA Re: Group FYIIf this explaination is too difficult for anyone to understand, then I guess the point is not worth explaining further... This is not too difficult to prove to yourselves. It is impossible to remove or change a person's message without it showing this within the "Show Message Option" as I referrenced. Of course one way to accomplish doing any editing and posting, would be to forward one of these moderated posts from the original message, and post it yourself as a moderator. Which in this case in question, was not how it happened!Hope everyone has an enjoyable July 4th Holiday week/end. LizFreedom is an empowering and sobering concept. It gives us the opportunity to succeed, and also to fail. Freedom allows us to make our own way in life. And it requires that we accept the responsibility for that.
Freedom and responsibility simply cannot exist apart from each other. You can be truly free only by being totally responsible for your life and your actions.
Though millions have died for it, and most would choose freedom over any alternative, freedom can at times be very frightening. It often imposes difficult decisions, and requires valiant effort to maintain. Though freedom is indisputably the best course, it is seldom the easiest. Yet freedom is worth the effort, for it is a human catalyst that has no equal.
To be free means being your own person, with your own purpose, and passion, and integrity. And just as it has to thousands of communities and millions of people, true freedom can bring you greatness.
-------Original Message-------From: prometheus_973Date: 7/3/2007 11:56:48 AMSubject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Group FYI [Response to Leaf]Hello All,FYI- Leaf's/Kent's real name is shown because that'show he posted it! Kent was banned under his otherscreen name and, therefore, he either knowinglyor unknowingly posted under his own address, OR the Yahooserver used his default settings (address) in order to be ableto send the message to this site.BTW- There was a threat, by Kent, to expose some privatee-mails sent to him. My purpose was to try and resolve ourdifferences and to respond to his questions without an audience.Obviously this attempt to defend myself, answer questions, andto end the dispute via these private e-mails was unsuccessful.And, let me say, there is nothing in these private e-mails thatwould prove harmful to me. One's imagination can run wild withspeculation, but there is nothing contained in them that I orany objective person would view as a problem. Therefore, thethreat that the exposure of these private e-mails would proveharmful to me or my reputation is baseless.FYI To All Members/Posters: Private e-mails will not be sharedor posted at any time... to do so would be unethical and show alack of character.Prometheus--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"<kentaddleman@...> wrote:>> I will try once more to reply on this forum, and I post here with the> understanding and expectation that my post will not be edited,> abbreviated, taken out of context, or changed in any way. If this> can't be honored, then please do not reply to me on this forum. Don't> write about my posts with your own comments unless you allow readers> to see the post entirely verbatim.>> Readers here are directed to read my posts/replies at> either "EckankarTruth" or "X-Eckankar, The Chains of Eck" forums to> get an accurate read of my posts. I feel the cross-posting is> necessary to insure integrity.>>>> Also, I privately told Prometheus in response to his private emails> to me that all promises of confidentiality I made regarding his> private emails would be rescinded if there were ANY further> distortions or misrepresentations of ANYthing I have written.>> His and Liz's reference to those private emails and their> characterization of them does, once again, come close to breaching> confidences. If this continues, I will post the private emails> verbatim, in order to let readers judge for themselves the content of> those emails.>> Also, I am unlikely to respond to any future private emails from Liz> or Prometheus, since there is a distinct possibility that my emails> will be further characterized in a bad light.>> First, I'd like to respond to this statement by Liz:>> Liz wrote (see her complete post below for context):>> > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was> > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's> > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty> ness> > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing> > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very> > long time!>> Leaf Replies:>> A post of mine, which was not allowed on the ESA forum, was responded> to in a post by Liz, who has private access to pending posts by> persons who have been placed on "moderated" status. The post was> chopped up into fragments, sometimes without complete sentences, and> replied to in her own post. The context of my post was changed, and> thus what I communicated was distorted in the process. I can't make> heads or tails out of some of my own words in her reply. I find this> treatment to be highly unethical.>> In my view, there was nothing in the post that I wrote that was NOT> entirely warranted. It was not "nasty.">> It is a violation of trust for Liz to make ongoing comments about the> post, such as claim there was "nastiness" in the post, without> posting it exactly as I'd written it, whole and unedited. As I see> it, the "nastiness" assertion is being used to justify unnecessary> censureship of comments not to their liking.>> It is also very disturbing to me that both Liz and Prometheus have> the practice of continually alleging "lewd" or "nasty posts," while> leaving no manner for the readers to see those posts and determine> for themselves whether they deserve such epithets. The samples> revealed to me by Prometheus in private emails do not warrant the> hyperbole and exagerations made by Prometheus and Liz.>> Thus, as to Prometheus' and Liz's allegations about Zoey using> pseudonyms and sending in "nasty" private emails, I can only wonder> if there is any substance behind these allegations, since now even my> own censured post is being described in exactly such a manner, and> there have been hints that even I am using other pseudonyms> besides "leafeater," which is absolutely not true.>> Another comment I'd like to address is this remark by Prometheus:>> Prometheus wrote (see below for complete context):>> "Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's> neg. involvement. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and> privately. There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was> unable to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already> formed an opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I> didn't want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-> moderator)read a pending message and replied to it in part. This> created even more disharmony which became impossible to resolve.">> Leaf replies:>> My posts to Marla, as well as other related posts I've made> concerning Marla, were not in any way prompted by anything concerning> Zoey. Liz and Prometheus are conflating the issues they have with> Marla on one hand, and Zoey on the other, which are two separate> issues. My comments regarding Marla are regarding only Marla, and> don't relate to Zoey. So the implication that I lacked information> concerning Zoey which somehow led me to make incorrect statements> concerning Marla makes no sense and defies rational thinking.>> Leafeater>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth"> <ewickings@> wrote:> >> > Hi Marla,> >> > Please read message #2687 which I posted below, It was a reply to> > you, along with questions I had for you. Maybe you missed this> > particular message? At any rate, the questions were posted to get> an> > idea of your history from this ex HI bf.> >> > One thing I would really like to know is how the Eck members would> > react if you had gone to an eckankar yahoo group such as Hu-Chat> and> > asked them the same questions? And if you do ask them (current> > eckists) please share your experience. Anyway, it was my attempt> at> > having a conversation to clear the air, give you the chance to> share> > your story in more depth. My chance to ask questions that might> allow> > you the chance again to share your experience, and for me to> listen.> >> > You will see I also responded to Zoey in this same post. As> > Prometheus shared, he/she was sending private nasty messages to the> > group, and privately. Neither Prometheus, nor I initiated any of> > these private conversations with him/her, nor did we actually> provoke> > some of the posts that was sent to ESA and moderated, at least to> my> > knowlege. I went back and looked over my initial comments to> his/her> > 9Zoey's) questions, and apparently they were not read by him/her?> > This individual got nasty first, on the skirts of posts made by you.> >> > Doing further research and comparing posts, IDs, and when an> > individual signed up and joined / left the group, what type of> > program was being used to mask the origination of posts privately> and> > to the group, (which were moderated) yes three differing IDs and> > posters (which two of them being one person) did get addressed in> one> > post.> >> > I do appologise for including my comments to Zoey, or even Leaf in> > the same post as the one to you. Not a good excuse I guess, but I> am> > rather busy and was attempting to make my life easier by only> > presenting one message. I won't do that again.> >> > I do not feel the need to explain myself to Leaf, which is exactly> > what I intended for him to understand. It was suggested to him by> > Prometheus to contact us (me) privately, yet Leaf did not, and it> > appears he also did not take what Prometheus shared with him> > (privately) as enough proof to warrent how Zoey was handled.> >> > I also was an admirer of Leaf's excellent sage posts, but when an> > individual DEMANDS anything of me, when it does not concern them,> > they will come up against a brick wall.> >> > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was> > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's> > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty> ness> > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing> > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very> > long time!> >> > Anyway, below is a copy of the questions I had concerning your post> > about integrity. A portion of the post was directed to others> > besides yourself, of which I explained the reasoning in this post,> as> > well in posts in answer to Leaf, Zoey and Rowan_Oak22. If Leaf> > wishes to continue dialog with any of these individuals privately,> > that is his business. But I do not feel the need to prove, provide> or> > justify myself to him!> >> > Again, please understand I am curious and the questions were with> > good intent.> >> > Liz> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> > Message #2687> >> > Sharon ;-) Re: integrity> >> > Hi Non ekster,> > It seems weird to me as well! It started with Marlasobbing> > coming over here from ET. She, apparently, wanted to share> > (with more people) her frustrations, anger, and some negative> > information about her ex-6th Initiate boyfriend and that he> > wasn't very "spiritual" since he carried a condom next to his> > Eck I.D. card, and that he cheated on her with hookers! Of> > course, I don't know how she really knew about the condom,> > the cheating, or the hookers, but it was a juicy story about a> > male H.I. misbehaving (which is really nothing new for either> > gender for Eckists in general). She, also, mentioned how he> > had taken her for an E.S.A. session and that she liked this> > female H.I. and, basically, said that the E.S.A. was very> > convincing with her silver tongue and friendly demeanor.> >> > I don't see that the term Victim Consciousness is always a> > New Age term, especially, when it's applied to the wrong> > "relationship" choices that we make. Sometimes the rejected> > person will place all blame on the other person while not taking> > responsibility for making a bad choice, seeing the signs, and> > admitting they screwed up. Closing one's eyes to the truth and> > then blaming the other person or someone else, to me, is a form> > of Victim Consciousness. It's kind of like how some women will> > choose "bad boys" and then not take responsibility for it or fail> > to (and refuse to) look into the "why" and then taking the steps> > to correct their destructive decision making processes. Life> becomes> > one long drama or soap opera for some people. Maybe they enjoy> > the attention too! I'm not saying this was what Marla was doing,> > but it seemed like it was possible and after awhile. It wasn't like> > it was a super long relationship (one year) IMO. Plus, she still> saw> > it in a "romantic" way! That's why I agreed with Liz and said that> > it was seeming like this was a one-sided version (of the truth)> > from a woman scorned. I know that I should not have "talked about"> > Marla nor made this observation or assumption, but then again it> > reminded me of situations in the past where I saw others caught in> > similar circumstances and one heard only one side of the> relationship> > story.> >> > Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's> > neg. involvment. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and> privately.> > There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was unable> > to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already formed> an> > opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I didn't> > want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-> moderator)> > read a pending message and replied to it in part. This created even> > more disharmony which became impossible to resolve.> >> > Anyway, it was an interesting learning experience. I admit that> > there were mistakes made (people aren't perfect) and that it could> > have been done better and kinder and there could have been more> > tolerance and consideration given to one another. So for that, on> my> > part, I apologize to Marla and to everyone.> >> > Prometheus> > p.s. I do appreciate Liz being a Co-moderator and taking care of> > the sites while I am away. Thanks Liz!> >>
- << Previous post in topic