Sasun Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I understand that you are angry that I blowed your idealistic bubble... How much Domino likes to talk about bubbles... shouldn't you worry about your own bubbles first Domino? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Domino, bring facts and answer my questions... I don't need rhetoric, it doesn't count. Don't defame a person by calling him a criminal. Don't be such a foolish arrogant person, you are just a forumer not a judge. It is not Domino who decides who is criminal and who is not, but only the court and law enforcement agencies. And stop accusing me of sabotaging a thread. You are the one who sabotaged my thread by bringing defamatory material. You have downgraded yourself into a mindless basher and you call me brainwashed? You have yet to bring any facts of crime and sex charges, period. Don't you get it that you are making a fool of yourself. As I made clear before, you don't have to accept Sri Chinmoy in any way, but you have no right to defame him. Dont compare with Talaat, Talaat killed millions of people, there are tons of facts and documents. Your views on Sri Chinmoy are based on your hate to religions, particularly gurus, and 2-3 days worth of reading internet accounts. How many times one has to say that internet posts do not constitute facts. And as I have already said, I have read those threads that you think I have not read. I compare this man with other criminals and I think he should be jailed for the rest of his life for having stolen the money, abused and destroyed psychologically peoples and destroyed their lives. Yes! He's a criminal, a piece of st... a liar a fraud... and you know that there is no evidences that could convince you untill you fell in the same trap Sasun. You will call every victims liars... you will accuse everyone of them to be one... comparing this criminal with sincere people like mother Theresa people that gave their life for other people, UNICEF missionaries etc... is attacking the life work of those that really fought for humanity. I have every right to expose frauds and criminals and defend victims of those piece of sts. Let me found my own sect/cult, in my cult everyone will be his/her own guru... equal, no one has more or less to teach, we are all teachers and students... no one is above that, anyone that claim to not be the student of others, and consider himself such is a fraud. This is my new cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Well, you clearly showed your hatred to gurus Domino. That is the only reason you are having this argument. It seems you are not in a stable condition, you should stop now. And stop faul language. This time you pass, next time I will edit out faul language as per forum code of conduct, I don't care how much you cry and accuse me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 (edited) Well, you clearly showed your hatred to gurus Domino. That is the only reason you are having this argument. It seems you are not in a stable condition, you should stop now. And stop faul language. This time you pass, next time I will edit out faul language as per forum code of conduct, I don't care how much you cry and accuse me. I have not used any fool languages Sasun, I call things by their name... you remember me one moderator at t.com that deleted and edited my posts because I called Karabekir a criminal. I respect forum rules. As for my stability, it is irrelevent to the discussion here. Edited July 15, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 He's a criminal... a liar a fraud... This is false accuations and defamation, a piece of st... and this is faul language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 It is false accusation for you... but the truth is that those accusations are real. Furthermore, "piece of st" is not against the forum rules... where is the word here that is against the forum rules? I have used "st" which is not a word forbidden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 It is false accusation for you... but the truth is that those accusations are real. Accusations are not for me or for anyone, they are not subjective. An accusation is true if it is proven objectively. Until then it is a false accusation. Furthermore, "piece of st" is not against the forum rules... where is the word here that is against the forum rules? I have used "st" which is not a word forbidden. You are manipulating forum rules to get away with an insult. It is clear what you want to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 (edited) There isen't anything that is "proven" objectivally, with "proof." Proof in coourt of law is called beyond any reasonable dought... and the ellements needed to come to this conclusion are "evidences." The fact here is that there is many many and many ex-disciples, from whom there is a considerable amount that their names are known that accuses Chinmoy, with descriptions that if they are lies, Hollywood producers stand no chance against their imaginations. The destricptions are to exact to be considered as simple lies... the victims displays the psychology of people that were victims of insestious abuses, often recorded in other organisations as well. There are enought evidences for me to call this beyond any reasonable dought... there is no way that any unbiased individual could still have dought after reading those so many testimonials... when the entire followers of the Guru is about 4000, and from a number I found, there is about only 300 disciples... there is NO WAY!!! That from such a small organisation you will find so much testimonials against the organisation... The very large majority of ex-disciples have negative stories, and even some disciples that have testimonies asking people to help them get out of the group and that they are afraid of the group reaction and threats. That you still call those peoples liars, and even going as far as suggesting that all those testemonials were made by the same persons is an evidences that you are brainwashed by this organisation. And no, I am not manipulating forum rules, It is permitted to hide the word, using words such as "skers" or "st" etc... to discribe other people than members of this forum is not against the rules... yes! It is obvious what i am trying to say, but beside you there is no moderator that will claim here that what I've done was against forum rules... I'm waiting any moderators beside you to come and tell it. edited out defamation and faul language Edited July 15, 2004 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 There isen't anything that is "proven" objectivally, with "proof." Proof in coourt of law is called beyond any reasonable dought... and the ellements needed to come to this conclusion are "evidences." Then go to court and prove beyond reasonable doubt instead of yelling non stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Sasun, I am openly saying that you have abused your moderator power and should not be alowed to moderate in the Theology forums because of your biases. There was nothing in my post that worthed to be edited. you have to impose the forum rules, nothing more or less, you can not use your power to impose more than the forum rules. I will therefore not post on either of the theology forums untill the measures are taken and that my freedom of speech to post in either of those forums is restablished according to the principles of this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sasun, I am openly saying that you have abused your moderator power and should not be alowed to moderate in the Theology forums because of your biases. There was nothing in my post that worthed to be edited. you have to impose the forum rules, nothing more or less, you can not use your power to impose more than the forum rules. I will therefore not post on either of the theology forums untill the measures are taken and that my freedom of speech to post in either of those forums is restablished according to the principles of this forum. I agree with Domino here as the same has hapened to me - my posts were edited by sasun for no reason but his disagreement with the thoughts presented -- nothing offensive in them at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sasun, I believe the thread you created at the beginning, you didn’t expected so much doughts and debate, giving the fact sensitive nature of the topic in time would start debate, questioning and doughts among us, and during the course of a heated debate I don’t believe posts should be modified, Domino did not break any rules nor his post should be modified! I nether agree with you or Domino, and frankly speaking, you should of ended the other thread long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sasun, I am openly saying that you have abused your moderator power and should not be alowed to moderate in the Theology forums because of your biases. There was nothing in my post that worthed to be edited. you have to impose the forum rules, nothing more or less, you can not use your power to impose more than the forum rules. I will therefore not post on either of the theology forums untill the measures are taken and that my freedom of speech to post in either of those forums is restablished according to the principles of this forum. If I am biased it does not affect your freedom of speech, we all have our interests that makes us different from others. Did I ever edit any of your arguments? No. Only profanity and angry slanderous speech, because you have crossed all lines. You are still telling me "piece of st." is OK. How about I call you the same thing? So tell me now, is it OK to say "Domino is a piece of st."? You are accusing me of breaking rules. Now tell me what rules have I broken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sasun, I believe the thread you created at the beginning, you didn’t expected so much doughts and debate, giving the fact sensitive nature of the topic in time would start debate, questioning and doughts among us, and during the course of a heated debate I don’t believe posts should be modified, Domino did not break any rules nor his post should be modified! I nether agree with you or Domino, and frankly speaking, you should of ended the other thread long time ago. Edward, I don't know if you saw before editing, I haven't edited anything valuable, a few lines of charges and "piece of st.". He said the same thing before, nothing new and nothing nice. When his arguments failed he started to call names and accusations. I don't know why you think I should have closed the other thread. Is there anything harmful in that thread? Anything illegal, immoral? In the past I have argued with Domino about his attacking a new person. I was not biased as I did not know about this new person, I don't even remember his name. I found that he was being attacked without reason, and I defended him. I remember talking to Domino about his other comments against others as well. Now I defend a person who I know very well, not personally but in other ways. I am absolutely sure that he is innocent. I don't think I am doing anything wrong defending him. It is against any morality and any laws to accuse innocent people. If it is believed that there is a wrongdoing then people report to the police. How come not a single complaint is filed against Sri Chinmoy? If there are any threats one should call 911 but not post it on the internet and misguide people. Domino is not in charge of identifying crime, this is not a court, we are not judges to identify crimes. Why is Domino leading this argument. He saw something on the internet? fine, he said about it abundantly. Why did he make his agenda to make grave accusations? He is againts gurus. So what? Should everyone be against gurus? He has no right to call people criminals because he believes so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 (edited) I will brake my silence because you have gone to far. You are lying Sasun, I have not called you "piece of st." And beside that the word "st" is not a banned word just like "a." etc... ask to any other moderators. I can say piece of st. to non-members of the forum, if my attack is justified. For instance I can call Bush because because of some of his policies "piece of st." And there will be no moderators that will ever edit or warn me... because it is waiting the rules... and you know it very well, because including YOU won't even touch such posts. But when it is about your Guru, it becomes an offense against the forum rules... why? Well, because when we refer to Chinmoy you take it personal. And yes! You have deleted my opinions, I was arguing and you know damn well... if you have kept the paragraph like you should have you are free to show it to Edward or any other moderators and ask them where was there anything abusive in my post. I am free, entirly free to call a criminal by his name... it is my opinion to consider that man a criminal, and you restricting me to say such things that are not forbidden by forum rules is to abuse your powers. Will you have any problem if I was to call Bush a criminal because of charges against him? You won't go gaga about it would you? You won't call everyone of those accusers liars will you? You won't consider it a conspiration will you? Now, I trow the ball in your direction and ask you, why should it be not equaly against the forum rules to have a thread about a man that is accused of rape, looting, or any kind of abuses? You won't have the same high standards of "inocent untill proven guilty." If it was anyone else. And that, you know with damn well as well. I find it an equal crime to support someone that those claiming to be victims multiply each year and that are accusing him of any type of crimes. And you are here questioning every accusations like that, doing exactly what the Turks do with the Armenian genocide. I have nothing else to add, as it is clear that you have abused your powers and I don't want as a veteran to see that repeated, if you can't moderate the theology forums impartially, just leave other moderators moderating that section. Lets say Edward, he agree with neither of us both, leave the theology boards to him. Edited July 16, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 (edited) You are lying Sasun, I have not called you "piece of st." Did I say that you called me? You called Sri Chinmoy. I warned you before, didn't I? And beside that the word "st" is not a banned word just like "a." etc... ask to any other moderators. I can say piece of st. to non-members of the forum, if my attack is justified. For instance I can call Bush because because of some of his policies "piece of st." And there will be no moderators that will ever edit or warn me... because it is waiting the rules... and you know it very well, because including YOU won't even touch such posts. I told you you are manipulating forum rules. Criticizing a politician is different because you are criticizing his policies. You don't criticize his personal life, his character, etc.. And yes! You have deleted my opinions, I was arguing and you know damn well... if you have kept the paragraph like you should have you are free to show it to Edward or any other moderators and ask them where was there anything abusive in my post. Well, too bad I didn't keep. But you have said the same opinion many times already (criminal, abuser, etc.), so I didn't hide any new opinion. I am free, entirly free to call a criminal by his name... it is my opinion to consider that man a criminal, and you restricting me to say such things that are not forbidden by forum rules is to abuse your powers. Forum rules forbid defamation. If I call you a criminal without proofs it will be a defamation. Will you have any problem if I was to call Bush a criminal because of charges against him? You won't go gaga about it would you? You won't call everyone of those accusers liars will you? You won't consider it a conspiration will you? As I said, this is about politics, not the personal life of the politician. If you called Bush a rapist that you definitely be wrong (unless it was proven). Now, I trow the ball in your direction and ask you, why should it be not equaly against the forum rules to have a thread about a man that is accused of rape, looting, or any kind of abuses? You won't have the same high standards of "inocent untill proven guilty." If it was anyone else. And that, you know with damn well as well. I find it an equal crime to support someone that those claiming to be victims multiply each year and that are accusing him of any type of crimes. And you are here questioning every accusations like that, doing exactly what the Turks do with the Armenian genocide. If I didn't have anything against accusations I would not know what to say. It never happened that you start an online trial of anyone else who has been accused on the internet. If that was the case, and if I knew that your accusations are only accusations then I would say the same thing. If it was a casual one post accusation, I would probably disregard. But here it is like you have an anti-cultist agenda. You laid down your argument (which I thought were unsubstantiated), and I laid down my arguments. Then you single handedly declared that he is a criminal. It is one thing to hear about accusations and talk about them, it is another thing to make an accusation yourself, based on mere accusations. I have nothing else to add, as it is clear that you have abused your powers and I don't want as a veteran to see that repeated, if you can't moderate the theology forums impartially, just leave other moderators moderating that section. Lets say Edward, he agree with neither of us both, leave the theology boards to him. Domino, you have yet to prove that I have abused my powers. I have done three things as a moderator. 1) Split the thread and make 2 separate threads with diametrically opposite content, 2) Warned you first that you cannot use foul langage and defamation, 3) After you disregarded the warning I edited out some of your defaming words (and there are a lot more of them still remaining) and abuse. I didn't give you an official warning or suspension. I do not think I have done anything wrong as per code of conduct, nor that I should not moderate in the theology section. Edited July 16, 2004 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.