Posted by krazy kat on July 3, 2002, at 22:47:08
In reply to Lou responds to IsoM'question » IsoM, posted by lou pilder on July 3, 2002, at 22:08:24
To begin with, I am too tired and not capable of following such a long post due to my medicine, so please forgive me if I misinterpret anything. But thanks for posting here, per my request. However...
> If a person is blocked for saying something to another person that causes their being blocked, can the blocked person be excused from the block if the person that the remark was directed to excuses the remark?I don't think this is the case with Sandra at all -- I have asked Dr. B., Lou, if including phrases such as "in my opinion" could 'allow', well, almost anything to be said and he never responded...
> Now this would have to be a precident for all posters. So this really isn't a one-person issue. For instance, suppose Krazy Kat writes that Kid_A
> should stop using poetry in his posts? Now let's go on and Dr. Bob issues a 7 day block to Krazy Kat with the admonishment that she can not read the poetry, but she should not tell Kid_A to not post poetry.I agree, which is why it cannot work...
> > The statement to "stop posting" can be construed by a reasonable man to be a threat to the one that is being told to stop speaking, for it is implied.But Sandra never said to stop posting - she just asked that you not answer all questions with the City "theme". Did that bother you? Why couldn't the two of you discuss this, if so?
> Now as far as her quoting beadedlady's remark, that, to me , is a worse offense for it is called "pileing on" in football and the penalty for unneccessary roughness is greater than the first roughness. I also consider it what is called a "cheap shot" in football. Because Dr. Bob did not admonish Beadedlady' remark, the other poster could claim that it was fair for her to also reinforce the same remark. but Dr. Bob spoke to that when he said thast the context of the 2 were different.And they were as Dr. Bob explianed.Totally disagree, Lou. Next time you accidentally respond to a post with its previous subject line, I feel compelled to point it out now. You, and Dr. Bob are assuming too much.
> I beleive in freedom of speech. But telling another to not speak, to me, is worse than censoring the speech.
She never told you not to speak. She tried to engage you in a discussion. There's no reason the two you could not have worked this out yourselves, and if Sandra is 'banned', I should certainly be, because I asked you to clarify things.
Lou, the thread(s) have been going well. Is it that when a poster hits a point that they're invading your security zone, you fight back? I expected you to be reasonable. You have not been. Why I Even try...
Adios again, Lou.
- kk
> Lou
poster:krazy kat
thread:5947
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/5960.html