Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2005, at 7:38:00
In reply to Re: **Boycotting Board** re: Larry Hover's Block.., posted by so on July 8, 2005, at 15:45:53
Friends,
It is written here that some others are in some way outraged over Dr. Hsiung's blocking of Larry Hoover for replying to a poster that wrote to not post to him/her.
But is it not what this forum wanted? Is there not the potential for some to see that the conception of the [...do not post to me...] rule had it's origins in when I requested clarification from others as going back to the rule's conception when some objected to me requesting clarification from them? Could you examine the archives?
When you look at the rule, if someone invoked the rule to me, then I could not ask them to clarify anything, for if I did, then I would be {...posting to someone that told me not to post to them...]. How be it that Larry could be an exception to the rule? Is this not what some others wanted here? Is not Dr. Hsiung giving those that wanted this rule what they wanted? If I was Larry, would there be this same thread? Is it not said in the halls of justice,[...what is good for the goose is good for the gander...]? And has not Larry posted that he was in some way in favor of the 3 consecutive post rule? Well, if he was in favor of that rule, could not this rule in question have that same favor?
I hold Dr. Hsiung blameless in this matter. If one posts here in some way that the {blocker}is at fault, then I say that I find no fault with the blocker. Could not the fault lie in the hands of those that concieved the rule? I find Dr. Hsiung's hands clean because is he not just accomodating the wishes of some here?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:523749
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525374.html