Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) » Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 6:48:05

In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35

Friends,
Another issue involved in this discussion is that I had previously posted that the Rider said to me:
"Marvel not that I say to you ,you Must be born again".
But now it appears to me that the administration could, but not necessarily, include that post with[..only God and you shall have no other Gods before me], so it appears to me that my previous post would also constitute disrespcting others , putting down others, or pressuring others if we use the same rational that deems my post in question to be restrained. Now there was acceptance of the post saying that you must be born again, and in its context it meant that you must be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God.
Now since there is a change indicated to me in this, then it appears to me that the administraion could thearfor also deem many of the other posts of mine to also be restrined, but not necessarily, and could possibly be subject to deletion, although that has not been put forth by the administration here but I feel that it has the potential to happen.
The constitution of the United States prohibits the concept of what is called "Ex post Facto". which is Latin for "a thing done afteword".
www.law,cornell,edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm
I am asking that none of the posts that I have already posted be deleted as a result of this discussion in advance and want to bring into this discussion the concept of "Ex Post Facto" only so that our discussion can be aware of this concept so that we can disscuss this better with each other. It is only the potential for the previous posts of mine to be deleted and there has been no indication to me that the administration would do that, but I just want us to be aware of this unconstutuional concept for there are going to be rule changes made for the administration has asked us in this thread for ideas and I am saying that any idea that is "Ex Post Facto", I would object to.
Lou

Thread

Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post Lou Pilder 10/20/02
...
Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob Dinah 10/25/02
Re: discussion on a internet board Dr. Bob 10/25/02
Re: discussion on a internet board » Dr. Bob Dr.Eamerz 10/25/02
Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 10/25/02
Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 10/25/02
Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob Dinah 10/25/02
Re: guidelines and exceptions » Lou Pilder NikkiT2 10/25/02
Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 10/25/02
Re: revised introduction Dr. Bob 10/26/02
It's a Maaahhvelous idea. (nm) » Dr. Bob SandraDee 10/26/02
Lou's reply to Dr. Bob's question » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 10/26/02
Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part 2 » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 10/26/02
Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 10/27/02
Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) coral 10/27/02
Re: revised introduction--A OK » Dr. Bob tina 10/27/02
Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) » coral Lou Pilder 10/27/02
Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) » coral Lou Pilder 10/27/02
louelsa Lou Pilder 10/27/02
Re: louelsa » Lou Pilder NikkiT2 10/28/02
Lou's question toDr. Bob » NikkiT2 Lou Pilder 10/28/02
Lou' response to Nikki's post (2) Lou Pilder 10/28/02
Lou's respons to Nikki's ost (3) » NikkiT2 Lou Pilder 10/28/02
Lou's response to Nikki'spost (4) » NikkiT2 Lou Pilder 10/28/02
Lou's question to Nikki's post (5) Lou Pilder 10/28/02
Lou's question to Nikki's post (5)Link Correction Lou Pilder 10/28/02
...
Lou's warning-kumunheyt Lou Pilder 7/2/13

Post a new follow-up

Notify the administrators

Start a new thread

poster:Lou Pilder thread:7713
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7907.html