As Oak has stated they will be taking legal action, it would be sensitive to respect that decision, and not enquire, for the purposes of journalistic voyeurism, as to details or reasons.

Jeff Bowe I am about to break one of the Rick Ross rules. It is worth a knuckle rap or even to be banned from the board to say this -- you are one of the slimiest, most hypocritical, barking mad assholes it have ever been my misfortune to encounter. I have met some in my time believe me. 90% of your contributions to this thread have been counter productive. In my view you would be better off spending time in counseling, rather than wasting it here.

I am disappointed, although given the nature of previous posts from this contributor, not entirely surprised, to note such a venomous outburst.

As Mr. Hansard is no longer promoting himself as an authority in the Bon religion, and therefore the cited reason for your interest in this issue has come to completion, what is the reason for your continued interest, if not voyeurism?

gondolf:

You seem to be here to discourage posts on this thread and/or to subvert it.

Stop the personal attacks.

Dear Moderator, following the rather insulting posts by Gondolf and Pema, against whom I have no ill feeling, I decided, some time ago, any attempt to engage in a reasonable or intelligent discussion, with those contributors, was pointless. Whilst I will not dignify such abuse with any reply, or trade insults, I would like to express my disappointment at the unpleasant tone which has been directed towards me. I welcome your supportive comments in this regard.

Quote
jeff bowe
As Oak has stated they will be taking legal action, it would be sensitive to respect that decision, and not enquire, for the purposes of journalistic voyeurism, as to details or reasons.

Is this not subverting the thread and discouraging conversation?

Is not accusing a journalist of voyerism a personal attack?

How about a little integrity from yourself.

gondolf:

Anyone on this thread should feel free to comment and say whatever they feel is appropriate.

No one should attempt to stiffle discussion here, that is within the guidelines.

Please refrain from personal attacks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2008 07:34AM by rrmoderator.

Really! I am sure that we are all curious to hear Oak's story if she wishes to tell it on this forum, and equally, willing to respect her privacy if she doesn't. I hope that her action will have an outcome.

Elizabeth, curiosity is obviously an understandable reaction, my concerns however were specific, and defined in terms of 'journalistic voyeurism', since the poster who expressed their interest in Oak providing details, comes from a journalistic background. Why 'voyeuristic'? Well that practice is short on action, preferring anonymous observation, in order to satisfy, some self-serving condition.

While viewers of this forum would have a natural interest, in learning more about Oak's situation and experiences, I would hope you may concur, that for a journalist to to invite such disclosure, raises the possibility of the aforementioned voyeurism, particularly when we recall the comments made by Dorje on 14th January 2007:

"That includes you Pema. You’ve been sitting on a lot of material for a long time. I told you many years ago that you wouldn’t stop Christopher Hansard if the most important part for you was doing your article."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2008 11:23PM by jeff bowe.