Integrity

[ViralSpiral]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
There is no wisdom in relaxing.

this....


As I mentioned previously (some 6000 pages ago *wink*), and others also so succinctly put: adversaries should be allowed a voice, without "real bullets".


If we cannot stretch, we will wilt!




p.s. Ofra can still not sing in Germany due to not being available ... /booo big bother!

[ThePythonicCow]

adversaries should be allowed a voice

... not absolutely, not without limits ...

Societies optimally allow for a diversity of organizations, and each organization optimally allows for a diversity of opinion.

But to insist that each organization should allow all voices would lead to each organization becoming a Tower of Babel, a discordant cacophony.

Rather each organization should constantly seek a balance between excessive discord and excessive uniformity.

The right to free speech needs to be balanced with the right of like minded people to freely associate.

[Isostool]

Posted by Paul (here)

adversaries should be allowed a voice

... not absolutely, not without limits ...

Societies optimally allow for a diversity of organizations, and each organization optimally allows for a diversity of opinion.

But to insist that each organization should allow all voices would lead to each organization becoming a Tower of Babel, a discordant cacophony.

Rather each organization should constantly seek a balance between excessive discord and excessive uniformity.

The right to free speech needs to be balanced with the right of like minded people to freely associate.

And what of the rights of Goldenyears and Modwiz and Lightblue and aroundthetable and Nagual to freely associate with their like minded friends here on Avalon?

And what of the point that what these people have said elsewhere on the internet does not interfere with the rights or ability of people to freely associate here?

How has removing them made for balance at Avalon between free speech and free association? It has not.

I have been looking back through Goldenyears' posts at Nexus - and I cannot for the life of me find anything rude enough to warrant a cancellation of membership, even if it was admissible to count evidence from outside of this forum, which in my opinion, it is not anyway. Just as an example. Go and have a look for yourselves. She was with Bill from the very beginnings of Avalon - the reasonings for these cleansings here are not straightforward or even cleanly explainable as having to do with integrity. It just does NOT add up.

[Icecold]

"Survivor" Ethics: The Saga of Dreamz and Yau-Man

http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/survivor.html

It's the season of year when the flowers blooming and the reality shows are picking their winners. There is usually a good ethics controversy to be found among the ramped up drama, clever editing and unmistakable odor of cheese. As it has several times before, "Survivor," the granddaddy of all reality shows, came through with the best ethical puzzler.

"Survivor," for those of you smart enough to avoid it and do something better with your time, like, oh, watching the newly released DVDs of "McHale's Navy," is a game show in which a bunch of contestants play Robinson Crusoe on some remote and primitive locale, as film crews record them competing in teams and finally as individuals. Every episode ends with someone being "voted off the island" by the participants, a decision that can be based on dislike, revenge, or strategy. The last three contestants win cash, a million bucks going to the winner, and there are other substantial prizes to be won on the way to the finals.

As the 2007 edition of "Survivor" got down to the final four competitors, there was a so-called "rewards challenge" for which the prize was a new truck. The challenge, and the truck, was won by good-guy contestant Yau-Man, but he offered the truck to a fellow competitor, "Dreamz," if he would agree to give Yau-Man his immunity if Dreamz won the upcoming immunity challenge. The winner of these "challenges," a fancy name for the kind of games people are forced to play at corporate retreats, can't be voted off the island in that week. Though giving away his immunity would subject Dreamz to the risk of being voted off himself, he accepted the deal and the new truck, saying that he wanted to teach his young son the value of keeping one's word.

He taught his son something else. Dreamz won the challenge but kept the immunity and helped vote the now truck-less Yau-Man, perhaps the strongest competitor, out of the competition---a smart move for someone wanting to win the million dollar prize, and a classic betrayal. Dreamz didn't win, but he did finish third, earning a substantial cash prize in the process. He also established himself as the current #1 villain in the reality show blogosphere.

Did Dreamz do anything unethical? It seems like a silly question: he lied, he betrayed, he double-crossed---what else could you call such conduct? But he didn't cheat. In "Survivor" all of this is within the rules of the game, just as bluffing in poker is neither cheating or lying. The objective of "Survivor" is not, as the name suggests, to literally "survive" on an island. If the stay on Fiji was going to be indefinite, ethical conduct would gradually become essential for all: imagine if Yau-Man and Dreamz had to work and live together after the betrayal. But "Survivor" has a much less complicated pay-off: winning the top prize after a limited number of weeks. The contest's creators purposefully encourage alliances and betrayals, because they make the game entertaining; this is, after all, a TV show. Lies, within the parameters of "Survivor," are simply tactics. They may be ill-advised (make too many enemies early, and you're a cinch to be voted out early), but anyone who has followed the show through the years knows that trickery has been part of the successful game plan of most season winners, beginning with first season winner Richard Hatch, who made the mistake of carrying "Survivor" ethics into the real world and got himself sent to prison . The producers of "Survivor" could easily make rules that forbid the sort of double-cross that Dreamz pulled on Yau-Man. But what fun would that be?

Culture determines ethics, and in the culture of "Survivor," lying and betrayal are not unethical. Stealing, however, is. Dreamz cannot keep the truck. For him to do so would be straightforward theft, and grand theft at that. The deal for the vehicle was broken by his reneging on the promise that was the only payment given to obtain it; Dreamz has no right to the truck whatsoever. As for his comments about teaching his son integrity, well, Dreamz was either being needlessly disingenuous or he's an idiot. "Survivor" is no place to teach anyone about integrity, honesty, or ethics. On the island, unlike in real life, ethical principles are simply tools to be used or discarded for other conduct that will win the game. Discussion for another time: how does this differ from politics?

But you still can't steal a truck.

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by ViralSpiral (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
There is no wisdom in relaxing.

this....


As I mentioned previously (some 6000 pages ago *wink*), and others also so succinctly put: adversaries should be allowed a voice, without "real bullets".


If we cannot stretch, we will wilt!




p.s. Ofra can still not sing in Germany due to not being available ... /booo big bother!

Those dirtbags.
Ok, we will defeat them.
If you are using windows, go get yourself a program called free studio. Search my posts, I have posted a link for it.
Once you have it installed, you can download youtube vids.
Just go to the title line on the Ofra Haza vids, get the url and pump it into the free studio youtube download nugget and see what happens.
If that works, you can see what you like.

[Lily de Cuir]

Hello Everyone,

Forgive me if I am missing something, but I've spent a goodly time on here over Easter, trying to make sense of a lot of stuff on this forum.

Am I correct in surmising that Inelia and Bill are now a partnership and an 'item'? That would explain Kerry's 'dummy spit' in releasing the Charles documents on another thread, in order to maintain some control, as it seems to be her modus operandi. Before I get myself unsubscribed, I'm just making an observation...seems like everyone is walking on egg-shells here. Not a good look if you ask me. I am all for being respectful and mindful, but we have to have free speech don't we, surely?

Wow, all these people being unsubscribed! Bit of a shock if people are just speaking their minds...

Mmmmm...

Kind regards,
Lily de Cuir

[Peacelovinman]

Posted by Paul (here)

adversaries should be allowed a voice

... not absolutely, not without limits ...

Societies optimally allow for a diversity of organizations, and each organization optimally allows for a diversity of opinion.

But to insist that each organization should allow all voices would lead to each organization becoming a Tower of Babel, a discordant cacophony.

Rather each organization should constantly seek a balance between excessive discord and excessive uniformity.

The right to free speech needs to be balanced with the right of like minded people to freely associate.

Then what you describe is not free speech. Surely, if a post is made, then all shades of opinion are welcome, as long as due respect is shown and the post is made within the guidelines of the expected courtesy from members?

When I see the word "balanced" next to "free speech" , I'm afraid it sets alarm bells ringing for me. That is the way communitarian philosophy and law seeks to erode basic rights within our society. I'm sure it was unintentional on your part, Paul.

Im my humble view, free speech cannot be balanced, it either exists or it doesn't.

[DoubleHelix]

I have been watching this unfold from day dot and from where I've been sitting it's come across crystal clear why the majority of these members have been removed / unsubscribed.
To grasp the whole story you will of had to of read a lot of posts and threads concerning the underlying issues. In regard to Modwiz I believe he was in the process of leaving avalon anyhow.. but besides that I think Chinaski summed it up pretty well

Posted by Chinaski (here)
frankly i cannot understand the indignation here. have we all read the 'Bill Ryan as guru' post at Nexus? have we noticed the support in the form of "thank you's"? this issue of where an insult or attack on character occurs and it's resulting relevance is pointless. if i had a friend that i was hanging around with being two-faced or stabbing me in the back, i wouldn't give a sh#t if he was doing it in the cellar of his house or in Timbuktu. you can dress this up verbally any way you like, but back-stabbing is back-stabbing, regardless of where it occurs.

modwiz was a solid contributor, yes. but go read that thread. he continually accuses Inelia of being a phony but offers no explanation whatsoever. over here he says something to the effect of feeling a powerful presence from her photo. over there he's singing a different tune. over here he's referencing her posts and encouraging other members to read them. over there,again, he's singing a different tune. (now i notice-in an effort to cover his tracks- he has invented some cockamamie excuse as to why he encouraged members to read her posts).

not only that, he accused Bill of exploiting Inelia- the "flavor of the month"- calling it a phony "promotion", and "creepy", implying Bill is some sort of snake oil salesman. he even likened him to P.T. Barnum, the promoter of hoaxes. he thanked a Celine post referring to Bill as a "fraud" and accused him of "peddling snake oil".

if i didn't know any better, i would have thought he was trying to get booted.

I for one fully support Bill and the Mod team and believe there doing a stella job... keep it up guys !

[Billy]

Personally i think Bill's house is a very very fine house, you light the fire Bill and someone can put the flowers in the jar that they brought today.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NZtJWJe_K_w

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NZtJWJe_K_w

Come to me now
And rest your head for just five minutes
Everything is good
Such a cosy room
The windows are illuminated
By the sunshine through them
Fiery gems for you
Only for you

Blessings to all who are invited and Happy easter

[Isostool]

Posted by DoubleHelix (here)

Posted by Chinaski (here)
frankly i cannot understand the indignation here. have we all read the 'Bill Ryan as guru' post at Nexus? have we noticed the support in the form of "thank you's"?

Um... so now members are being policed and scutinised and assumed to be understood as to their motives and intentions for who they choose to thank?! On another forum? So where is the line? Anywhere? What are you sanctioning here? Seriously!!! wtf [LOL...shakes head laughing with amazement]

[DoubleHelix]

Posted by Isostool (here)

Um... so now members are being policed and scutinised and assumed to be understood as to their motives and intentions for who they choose to thank?!

Yeah I'd have to agree.. That part seems a little far fetched

[greybeard]

I thought the thank you button just meant you found something helpful in the post not that you agreed totally completely and utterly with the whole content
I have thanked many who had opposing opinions to mine as they prompted me to examine my thoughts.
I thanked people for giving me the chance to hold and express a different view.

Chris

[Icecold]

Originally Posted by Chinaski
frankly i cannot understand the indignation here. have we all read the 'Bill Ryan as guru' post at Nexus? have we noticed the support in the form of "thank you's"?

Oh look the gestapo is on the job. lmao

This reminds me of 1984 and the 'thought police'. ROTFLMAO

{mod edit: removed ad hominem attack}

[Gone002]

I had no idea that those members had been removed, im kinda shocked that this has happened. It is strange that the majority of elders have gone/ been removed.

[Icecold]

Posted by celt (here)
I had no idea that those members had been removed, im kinda shocked that this has happened. It is strange that the majority of elders have gone/ been removed.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FmPi8ePDmcg

[greybeard]

There is great value in positive feed back - that is integrity
The opinions I held over the years have been modified changed because I listened to constructive criticism. (there has been plenty--- laughing)
I know my opinions will change, mature over the coming days weeks years -- if I thought I was correct in my views -- set in concrete how could I grow?

A good example was the early guided missile --it would veer to the left after take off -- then the computor would direct it to the opposite direct ie right.
It would then veer right but not so far -- soon it would cease these fluctuations and be on target.
I would not claim to be on target yet far less right.
Part of integrity is being open minded.
Eventually you dont have a set opinion.
That might seem strange.

The Course in Miracles says, as far as I remember "The moment that you take up a position know that you are identifying with an illusion."
Eckhart Tolle says " I dont take my thoughts too seriously"

Paul Simon "One mans ceiling another mans floor"

We all have different points of view thats the way it is.

Happy Easter

Chris

[jjl]

sounds like we could all use a cleansing breath again.

[ulli]

Bill's quest for learning is what brought me to this forum.
So my personal quest led me to the greater highway of Bill Ryan's quest.
Am I now a cultist? I can leave when I want to, I doubt if anyone here will come after me or my money.

While Bill worked with Kerry on Camelot there were more regular interviews,
as there existed this rather different dynamic.
Now Bill is heading Avalon, on his own, which appeals to me more
(psychologically this can possibly be explained in that I was a daddy's girl)
and he is getting more deeply involved with the people he is interviewing than before.

That's his style. Fine by me.
Charles and Inelia must be pretty special people to grab Bill Ryan's attention,
and I wish that both will interact more with this forum once it is free from disruptive hecklers.
And perhaps that is the overall plan. People like that are very, very sensitive
and don't function too well with James Randi type hecklers screaming in their ears.

Ok, some who were unsubscribed weren't exactly hecklers, nor trollls. Yet in believing that Bill had become too gullible,
and making snide remarks about him I find not only inappropriate but also see it as a projection.

I first discovered the knowleldge of "projections" around 2003, and went a bit wild with that idea.
I now know that this knowledge can become a dangerous weapon if one applies it
more to others than to oneself, but in the case of some of the members behavior it is hard not to see them doing it.

But even if I were to project onto him that he is "too this", or "too that" I would keep it to myself,
as it would reveal something about myself I hadn't noticed before.
Private matter between me and my Maker.
Contemplating on it helps me to get to know my inner universe better.

[Isostool]

Posted by DoubleHelix (here)

Posted by Isostool (here)

Um... so now members are being policed and scutinised and assumed to be understood as to their motives and intentions for who they choose to thank?!

Yeah I'd have to agree.. That part seems a little far fetched

Then take a look at this!: http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showt...ll=1#post12079

[jjl]

Posted by Isostool (here)

Posted by DoubleHelix (here)

Posted by Isostool (here)

Um... so now members are being policed and scutinised and assumed to be understood as to their motives and intentions for who they choose to thank?!

Yeah I'd have to agree.. That part seems a little far fetched

Then take a look at this!: http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showt...ll=1#post12079

This to me, would strengthen the argument that they were not happy here.