Posts by Andrew Sanchez572

David Ortiz26 said:Who cares? Your gender doesn't change anything to me. ☕

Give me a break. You'll be lucky if you even see white smoke. 🙄

Well, it matters to me, dear...

David Ortiz26 said:Who cares? Your gender doesn't change anything to me. ☕

Give me a break. You'll be lucky if you even see white smoke. 🙄

when we start picking at this bone... 😢

Yes, we could certainly put it this way:

The very last administrator we end up hanging will be the one who handed us this forum in the first place...😁

David Ortiz26 said:Alright, I assume you were being poetic with that bit about swallowing garbage. 🤣 🤣

I agree; if you want to be a supermod, you basically have to be a world-class suck-up. 👎

I’ve complained twice about pointless warnings—just total nonsense, let's be clear👎—but not a single admin even bothered to reply, even after I sent them a direct message.

Whenever there's some "dramatic" situation, hollowtrucker77 usually just sits back and thinks, "Hmm..." acting like he's some genius who's going to handle everything better than you lot.

Then he just locks the thread without actually solving anything. 😕

EDIT: I don't post much on this massive forum because half the people here aren't even worth joking with. 🙂

think about

here, let me just quote him for clarity:

I don't have an issue consuming animal proteins, and honestly, I've never been a picky eater anyway.

So now we can finally reach a conclusion about who finds what acceptable... 😬

But, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I'm manipulating things or playing games, so here is the link for you to verify everything for yourselves:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=375047

Yes, yes, it's a total joke of a sub-forum, but then again, it is quite a fun little joke... 😂

hollowtrucker77 is perfectly fine when dealing with simple matters, or when he’s busy managing those notorious idiots (whom he can identify easily enough), but the moment things shift toward criticizing a moderator—you know, once we step into the realm of forum politics—that's a whole different story. He'll end up eating dirt if Jerry Garcia tells him to 😁

Rachel Sanchez11 said:Let's look at this situation.

An attack on a subforum should really be an attack on the moderator. But that shouldn't be the case here. hollowtrucker77 is actually one of the best mods we have on this site, even if I didn't think so when he first showed up. I guess I just didn't give him a full hundred days to prove himself, but man, he’s actually surprised me.
Secondly, the fact is that some weird hierarchy has taken over the forum lately; things have gotten way more heavy-handed (someone like the Administrator or whatever).
Thirdly, people are constantly complaining on the FBI section, and it’s become this standard routine where every single complaint gets brushed off as some "unserious attempt" to overthrow the mod—attempts that never work anyway, and almost none of these complaints ever lead to anything positive. Just a heads-up: hollowtrucker77 really tries to separate the wheat from the chaff, but he isn't getting any support from the higher-ups. His job is to moderate serious complaints, not to act as the final judge in them. And that’s what he does—he keeps the thread open, cleans out the spam and the parasites, but nobody from the people who are *supposed* to respond to the complaint shows up, so there's just silence for days.
Then, the people starting these threads lose their minds because they feel like nobody gives a damn about them—which, let's be honest, is true 😁—so they start going absolutely nuclear in every language possible. Then come the warnings, the points, the bans, and it turns out the user actually deserved the ban in the first place.

Fourthly, once, an admin called my constructive argument "acting like someone's lawyer" just because I was defending a certain right, and then she shut the whole thread down. I sent her a private message asking for an apology since I didn't consider myself anyone's lawyer. She didn't reply. And when I actually complimented her, saying it was nice to finally have an admin who actually responds to DMs, she shot back that she had better things to do than answer a PM where I was being all dramatic about wanting an apology. This tells you everything you need to know: this esteemed admin has much more important things to do than deal with your nonsense. She has the power, she uses it, and she never questions her own calls because, frankly, we aren't worth her time to sit and rethink things.

So, I've confirmed my suspicions, and I'll tell you guys again, though I've said it plenty of times already.
Reddit is privately owned and, honestly, it’s technically maintained pretty poorly. Since it’s private property, the owner can basically do whatever they want. Because of that, users don't have much ground to stand on when complaining about moderators and how they behave, because every single one of them was chosen by the owner to represent his interests and protect his property. When you look at it that way, every complaint is just a waste of breath.

So, that’s how it stands. Next time you feel the urge to complain, just remember that the moderators are working for free (well, maybe not for free—I actually started a thread about that on the psychology board once) and remember that the forum hasn't been running well for years. Seriously, call up any hosting service and ask what it would cost to host a forum like this. You’ll quickly realize the owner couldn't care less about the site, and if he doesn't care about the site, he doesn't care about the users. And if he doesn't care about the users, then the moderators are just his extended arm—they get the same "don't care" impulse from him, and so they don't care about you either. It always stinks from the top down.

You can choose to accept this reality, stay true to yourself, and be who you are despite it all. Or, you can spend hours here arguing in a losing battle. Because at the end of the day, this is a private forum...

You guys are just numbers. You are nothing more than unique clicks that the owner displays to advertisers. The only thing that makes you "unique" is the statistic: "we have x0,000 unique clicks every day." When you stop clicking, someone else will take your place. And that other person won't be any different from you, even if you're clicking based on some deep philosophy about topics that need to radically change the world, while that other guy is just some random teenager opening threads like: "I've never done it..."
And both you and he are just tiny clicks, one of thousands of others that make up the "strength" of this forum.

That’s why we shouldn't abolish the FBI section. It serves its purpose. It channels the dissatisfied people so they can be ignored. That is its function. Its job isn't to resolve a potential complaint. Maybe we should just rename it: "Wishes and Futile Complaints." Description: Complain all you want, and get banned...

🙏
Bravo, I sign off on this word for word!
(Truly everything, but especially that part about Sash and Bell)

I honestly feel like this post belongs in a "Welcome to the Forum" guide... you know, acting as the true manifesto for this place, rather than just endless chatter about bans, signatures, and minor rules...
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here 😁

I am in complete agreement with the person who started this thread; I cast my vote for it, even if I struggle to see the ultimate purpose behind all this... though at least we have something to dissect since there's nothing else to do.

My most recent example involves four separate threads created over a period of about six weeks, where we were all providing reasoned arguments regarding the moderator unknown—specifically, his particular style of moderation on the platform. One day, those threads were simply locked without a single word of greeting, an explanation, or anything one might call a polite response...

As a reward for our efforts, we received quite a collection of penalties.

I truly tip my hat to the good moderators, of which there are thankfully many, but with people like that, everything should be handled right within the disputed thread itself, or perhaps through a private message.
The others, the reason we even have to be here, are simply ignorant individuals who, in my estimation, do nothing but damage the community and communication among users because they are "conflict-prone personalities"... yet, clearly, there is no way to combat that. Consequently, I tend to avoid any threads overseen by such moderators, and I am perfectly fine with that choice.

Of my three submissions to the Appeals section, not a single one resulted in a coherent response, let alone a constructive resolution.

The most significant issue with moderation seems to be the selective application of penalties, based on what I can gather from my own experiences and what I read here. There is a glaring disparity in how "veteran" users are treated—far more is tolerated for them—and I have also noticed a different attitude toward women, being significantly stricter, certainly.

So, there it is, just my humble opinion...🙂

hiddenhound3 said:here is an example (taken from this page):

I will be penalized—you may decide on the nature of my punishment yourselves.
Whether it be collectively or individually, whether the consequences are mild or severe.
The cause could be trolling, spamming, sexism, or perhaps something else entirely.

Fine, I agree that spamming and trolling clearly violate the forum rules.

However, sexism? That isn't prohibited by law, nor is it forbidden by our own community guidelines. Why should such behavior be sanctioned? Is it simply because our esteemed host change happens to be sexually enlightened?

🤷 😕

So, there you have it. I was awarded 10 points just for suggesting that men belong in a sperm bank—which, mind you, was intended as a joke and was actually a response to a long string of genuinely sexist posts over in the Spirituality subforum. Through the sheer accumulation of these points, I eventually earned myself a permanent ban.

I hold no grievances; I merely wish to set the record straight (and I am posting here because the Spirituality board won't let me back in).
Best regards, hiddenhound3, and stay strong, 🙂

At my place, the ringing lasts for about 15 to 20 minutes.

It isn’t an issue with the soundproofing, because during the summer, you have your doors and windows wide open (honestly, they could probably adjust the volume levels too, if they felt like being reasonable)

And yes, it really is pure terror

Some of these concerts feel almost ritualistic in nature.

So, apparently, terrorizing everyone with ringing bells at 7 or 8 on a Sunday morning is perfectly legal ☕
We are truly blessed... 🙏

It really makes me wonder, though—would it be considered legal if a bunch of Satanists decided to throw black metal concerts at 7 in the morning? ☕

That sounds fantastic! I am actually quite interested in this topic myself.
On religious holidays and Sundays, the church in my neighborhood practically goes overboard with the bells (they have five 😢).
First, they start at 7:00 AM, and it drags on for about 15 to 20 minutes. Then they go again at 8:00, then 11:00... I don't really keep track after that.
On Sundays, I truly value my sleep in the morning, and I find myself wondering if there are any legal restrictions in place, or if they are simply allowed to terrorize people right inside their own homes?
(As far as Boston is concerned, the evening bells are perfectly fine; they provide a certain stimulation and atmosphere that I don't mind at all.)

🤣
I am going to exert myself...
You seem to have overlooked the fact that Kenneth Peterson5 has been dedicating her time to contemplating spirituality through the lens of poetry and photography.👍

Well, I suppose it’s much more efficient to be a politician or a corporate tycoon, isn't it? That way, one can engage in legalized plunder without any of the usual messy consequences...👍

😂
But what if someone is just a child when it comes to infidelity?
And really, how do we even define adultery in this day and age?
Honestly, it all feels like questions born from some outdated, rigid moral code...
What does it even mean to be a prostitute?
Even a woman who is married but doesn't have a job could arguably be labeled that way under certain definitions.
Anyway, I think I see where you're coming from (though you might have missed my point entirely), so let's avoid drifting too far off-topic. There is already a dedicated thread about women and spirituality, so perhaps we should move this discussion over there...

Alright, thanks for the heads-up.
I’m still a bit skeptical about this whole karma thing, but I'll take your word for it...
(And I really won't even get started on comparing a prostitute to a mother practicing self-denial)

Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

granitebadger23 said:I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

It feels even more awkward being singled out for something you are fundamentally opposed to...
And besides, we are all human beings, after all, so these kinds of misunderstandings are bound to happen from time to time. We aren't exactly typewriters, are we?...

granitebadger23 said:I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

I wasn't actually thinking of her, but rather a disciple of SP, though the name escapes me at the moment. She was encouraged for years to take that position, but she declined. I don't know the full story, so I can't go into much detail...

granitebadger23 said:I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

I am not suggesting there is a direct link, but SP quotes him quite often, as do many prabhus whenever it serves their purposes...
And please, don't try to argue that there isn't sexism in the Vedas or even a hint of patriarchy within Vaishnavism, because if you go down that road, you will certainly have to provide a very detailed defense...😛

boldsailor2 said:Okay, I definitely went a bit overboard there... MY BAD! 🙂

I appreciate that, truly kind of you to say

boldsailor2 said:Oh my god... you completely misread the situation 🤷 when I tell someone to quit messing around—that isn't offensive at all... it's actually the exact opposite! Everyone I've been chatting with for years knows that... clearly I just lost track of the fact that you aren't part of the inner circle that uses our specific forum slang... sorry!

It isn't the slang or being called "little one" that bothers me🙄—it’s the accusation that I’m defending sexism or that I find it acceptable.
To me, sexism is abhorrent, and I have always been, and will always be, against it. I have dealt with countless conflicts, both as a devotee and in my daily life, because of my feminist views, so being accused of this is genuinely infuriating. 😠

Some of those statements from Krishna were clearly just part of our "internal" shorthand. If I held someone in high regard and respected them, it feels incredibly unjust to characterize them this way. It's like if someone told you a classic joke about Joe and Hasi, and you suddenly accused them of discriminating against minorities.

If there truly is a Vaishnava follower out there who isn't sexist, then I am truly happy to hear it. I welcome that. 🙏

boldsailor2 said:If Krishna had decided to show just how disgusting and crude masculine behavior can be "in public" by saying—excuse me sir, but your wife stinks... (honestly, I wonder how an Ascetic would have felt in a moment like that)—the whole room would've absolutely lost it. Instead of someone normal—and clearly there wasn't anyone normal there—calling him out for talking nonsense without a shred of respect... now that I think back on all the stuff we used to laugh at, I actually feel kind of bad. It was mostly just mocking people—like those yogis who spent days staring blankly at the tip of their noses thinking they were so great, or making fun of those clueless Maya followers. All in all, we had a blast, but when you really dig beneath the surface... hm...

I actually never heard anything like that from Krishna. Even if he did say something along those lines, it wasn't aimed exclusively at women; he used to joke at everyone's expense, including his own (and especially his own).
You're talking nonsense. There were some who truly utilized sexist language. Even the gurus.

granitebadger23 said:Why all the fighting?

The way you spoke to him wasn't polite, but he does have a point when he claims women are categorized as less intelligent or as fallen (candala). Just look at the evidence—how many female gurus are there in ISKCON or the Theosophical Society?

It’s also interesting that this isn't the case with other Vaishnavism traditions, which have many women in their lineage who served as gurus. The idea that women are less intelligent doesn't come from Krishna. In fact, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says He is intelligence among women. So, how could women be less intelligent?

Not only was the tone impolite and condescending (sexism, or whatever you want to call it 🤔), but I was also accused of defending sexist behavior, which, if I'm being honest, is even more insulting to me.

I believe there is even a female guru in ISKCON, if I recall correctly...
the notion that women are less intelligent comes from people like the Scholar and such...
The Vedas can be interpreted in many different ways...