User talk:Kobutsu

Hi Kobutsu- thanks for the link to the Aitken material. I will consider whether any of it is of much use. But I have basically come to the end of the line on this issue for now. Because I seem to be only active editor with any actual knowledge of the "Zen world", I have been unable to impress anyone of the profundity of Aitken's letters, either from 1995 (is that right? With the other 7 teachers) or in May, and how they are not just more "blog fodder". They just don't see how the letter itself is of primary, newsworthy significance - hence a Tricycle report devoted to its existence and effect.

I've studied Zen for over 20 years, and I ain't old, so to my eyes these recent developments are of course of great significance. In my estimation, there has been something of a failure of the "hard" media (especially Buddhist specific) to cover the story properly, though there are many quite reputable online reports; Aitken's reputation doesn't seem to be understood by the essentially three active editors who have been fighting pretty hard to limit mention of abuse allegations - they don't seem able to put together that Tricycle wouldn't report at all on that letter (re-posting it in full) if just about anyone else had written it (even on their news-feed/so-called 'blog' - a term that is infuriatingly imprecise these days; it's used to basically discount any online source in order to dismiss content, but if you can find any crap in print, its carte blanche.) What other news source is going to care (at least until something criminal is charged)? Especially frustrating are the arguments that somehow Aitken's letter is making 'fresh' allegations, when all he is saying is that allegations exist and should be addressed by Shimano. As proved by the vague ZSS statement to Tricycle, which HAS been allowed.

So until there are further developments, the version will probably stay as is. It's not bad. It's just that it could be better. As could Aitken's, after just checking on that. Take care.Tao2911 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Your edit here which I have suppressed and will be oversighted soon, is a clear attempt at WP:OUTING an anonymous editor. This kind of action is considered harassment, and is not tolerated. Please read the policy carefully, and note that any repetition of this will be viewed very dimly, as attempted outings are grounds for an immediate block. --Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you guys are talking about... it's all awfully complicated. I never read any rules.

Kobutsu (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Start reading them, and pay special attention to Wikipedia:Outing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What would be the point of reading innumerable regulations, since I am indefinitely banned for exposing the shifty maneuverings of those who would evade conflict of interest rulings?

Kobutsu (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)