Another little thingy

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ParadigmShift on May 9, 2009 at 8:33am

That's a horrible analogy. SOSOE is mostly (not entirely) here to warn about and poke fun at Brad's fraud. In order for your analogy to work, SOE would have to be a site devoted to promoting Brad's fraud.

Here's where you went wrong: you know SOE is meant to promote New Age concepts and discuss events in that context, and you're trying to distort this site as being anti-new age just as a vegetarian would be anti-meat consumption. Bad move--even ilikepies has admitted to subscribing to certain New Age teachers.

It was an amusing attempt nonetheless.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ParadigmShift on May 9, 2009 at 8:44am

Here's a more fitting analogy: if a member of an unspecified food network saw that a member from a meat-eating network was telling others that eating pig lard was good for you, and decided to warn the community that this information was false...would you ban him? Yes Tony it seems you would.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ParadigmShift on May 9, 2009 at 8:50am

No, this is plain wrong. SOSOE might not be what I say it is but who are you to speak for SOE as to what this site is "seen as, perceived as", when we've been censored over there? We have been able to get along fine with many SOE members when they come here YOU were the ones to ban them. It seems that if you're here you can be a member of both, but if you're there you're banned for being a member of this site.

Not even close.

Tony said:

analysis is in the eye of the beholder. You are taking it to literally. There is no connection between the analogy and the previous paragraph. sosoe is considerd/experienced/perceived as anti soe not just anti brad. Maybe that is where you are going wrong. so being a member of soe is not compatible with being a member of (anti soe) sosoe. It is not what you say sosoe is, it is what it is seen as, perceived as. So in the analogy you are either a vegetarian or a meat eater, you can't be both.
ParadigmShift said:

That's a horrible analogy. SOSOE is mostly (not entirely) here to warn about and poke fun at Brad's fraud. In order for your analogy to work, SOE would have to be a site devoted to promoting Brad's fraud.

Here's where you went wrong: you know SOE is meant to promote New Age concepts and discuss events in that context, and you're trying to distort this site as being anti-new age just as a vegetarian would be anti-meat consumption. Bad move--even ilikepies has admitted to subscribing to certain New Age teachers.

It was an amusing attempt nonetheless.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda on May 9, 2009 at 9:57am

In other words: I was banned because I openly spoke out, here on this site, in favor of posting a reply that would get me banned FOR SURE?... because I openly said I WOULD place a piece written by US/CA and UK folks, ppl who have been silenced by SoE?... because of the threat that was to Brad?... dont even TRY to tell me Brad was not the one scared of even the threat of that happening, because YOU are the one who told me you received a message from BRAD... to me its so sad you are going along with this... really, it saddens me deeply... I hope that 1 day you will see the danger Brad is for the site he opened with, I think, good intentions.

Gosh, maybe I should be flattered that little old me is enough of a threat to that ego-tripper to ban me for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL.

You know, maybe I could have laughed about this if it wasn't SO DAMN SAD, Tony... and there's no need for mail either... I will not take these things up with you in Dutch... I will stick to the main language on this site, but thank you for the offer, I guess.


Linda.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda on May 9, 2009 at 10:01am

untill last night I was in that list 2... but not anymore, for NO GOOD REASON WHAT SO EVER TONY... its just BS and now I'm getting mad and that's NOT what I want and need, so I'm not going to read anymore for now.


- but if you're there you're banned for being a member of this site. Not even close.
Not sure what this means. Unless it means members at soe who are also a member here, are not banned here?
As i said above, their are members here who are not banned at soe. Let me do just a quick check and name 4.
1 - mystical enigma
2 - gotzeus
3 - bsb
4 - indigo

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ParadigmShift on May 9, 2009 at 10:10am

--- nowhere did i say that was on behalf of soe as a whole it was a conclusion which can easily be confirmd by posts from here. By those posts any members signing up tomorrow are autimatically classed as "drones", "sheep" as the posts here speak of "all members".

How many topics out there are overtly opposed to SOE, where SOE is the center of scrutiny? Compare that to how many topics out there are overly opposed to Brad and some specific teachings and endeavors of his. How again are you coming to the conclusion that this is an anti-SOE site? Are you going to go back to the retarded "well pies once said..." tactic?


--- you have not been cencored, but banned for breaking rules. The latest rule being "zero tolerance" which did away with all old rules. Simply stick to one-on-one or mediation through an admin as all members do, and believe me enough comes through the mail box so it is a simple rule to abide by. The preference for the dramatization in public is not shared by the majority of the community.

As far as I know we're not allowed to make our presence as a community known at SOE. I think LS/SOSoe was banned for not changing his screen-name. Again, you're totally wrong, we ARE censored. So again how can you say that we're "considerd/experienced/perceived as anti soe" when most of the members there, thanks to your censorship, probably have no clue as to who we are and what we stand for? Especially when we're not given a chance to make our case.


---there are quite a few who are member here and not banned at soe. It is the members who attack or actively support attacks on soe and its members who are banned.

Yes, a FEW... and of the few that are left, the one thing they have in common is that they haven't come out and said anything that Brad could cry about. Thanks for making it only more obvious to everyone.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda on May 9, 2009 at 10:13am

---there are quite a few who are member here and not banned at soe. It is the members who attack or actively support attacks on soe and its members who are banned.

Yes, and the one thing they have in common is that they haven't come out and said anything that Brad could cry about. Thanks for making it only more obvious to everyone.

YES EXACTLY !! tyvm para...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda on May 9, 2009 at 10:29am

Hang on, that may sound good, but it isn't... why? because you can not say ANYTHING on SoE... at least, not anything that is DIFFERENT from what you guys -meaning that ego-tripper and his admins- think is thruth or whatever... confrontation about moves this guy has made/is making is OUT OF THE QUESTION, because you will be banned right away... therefore there is no way to "follow simple rules" ... the rules are made to PROTECT this this this this... guy.

You can keep on denying all you want, Tony... but in my humble opinion a few to many people think this way... its not just a few folks Tony... nobody is speaking up, because they KNOW they will be banned right away... if you think that's rubbish, then so be it.


On a final note let me add that the "zero tolerance" is easily apllied and followed through by all members at soe. Now would be a good time to follow that simpel rule and awake your sleeping accounts in a manner which wouldnt imply a ban and actually join, discuss and shape soe through the appropiate group.

ParadigmShift said:

Here's a more fitting analogy: if a member of an unspecified food network saw that a member from a meat-eating network was telling others that eating pig lard was good for you, and decided to warn the community that this information was false...would you ban him? Yes Tony it seems you would.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ParadigmShift on May 9, 2009 at 10:38am

Tony said:

On a final note let me add that the "zero tolerance" is easily apllied and followed through by all members at soe. Now would be a good time to follow that simpel rule and awake your sleeping accounts in a manner which wouldnt imply a ban and actually join, discuss and shape soe through the appropiate group.



I'll be sure to mention it to Deus, I'm sure he'd be thrilled to become a part of SOE's shady gestapo politicking after what happened the first time around, eh?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ilikepies on May 9, 2009 at 1:03pm

two words tony

THOUGHT POLICE

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by LeavingSOE on May 9, 2009 at 2:32pm

Why, again, were the following members banned from SOE?

1. Apocolypstick
2. Candylily
3. Choshu
4. Linda

Please don't recite the "zero policy" rule. I think these women deserve to know the exact statement they uttered to merit a ban. Funny that I was given the courtesy of an email from Brad, I took the opportunity to speak my piece, and I wear my "Banned" badge with pride. Whoever banned these women should show them the same respect.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by DeusEx on May 9, 2009 at 4:03pm

LOL, where can I sign up? I always wanted SOEOps militaria :)

ParadigmShift said:

Tony said:

On a final note let me add that the "zero tolerance" is easily apllied and followed through by all members at soe. Now would be a good time to follow that simpel rule and awake your sleeping accounts in a manner which wouldnt imply a ban and actually join, discuss and shape soe through the appropiate group.



I'll be sure to mention it to Deus, I'm sure he'd be thrilled to become a part of SOE's shady gestapo politicking after what happened the first time around, eh?

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2