Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2006, at 7:24:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by SLS on September 17, 2006, at 6:53:42
Friends,
It is written here,[...feel that posts that have not been sanctioned...are not de facto indicated as being civil...].
Now can we reason together here? You see, does not Dr. Hsiung write in his FAQ that we are to trust him and that what he does is in his thinking what will be good for the community as a whole? So could not there be the potential for some to think that if there is no sanction to a post that [...it is good for the community as a whole...]?
Then there are statements by DR. Hsiung like,[..I think that it is acceptable..] and [...I'm going to let it stand...]. Is it not the generally accepted meaning of [...let it stand...]to mean,[...{to side with} and {to allow to remaine valid}, and {as a position that one is prepared to uphold}, and {to advocate support of}...]?
Then there are posts that the administration is unwilling to reply to me about my request to them to sanction the post. These are mainly in email and if anyone would like to see these, I could email them to you if you like. I will not email the email, but only the post in question that I did not receive a reply from the administration.
I ask:
A. Is not there the potential for some to think that if a post is left unsanctioned, that it is {left to let stand}?
B. Is not there the potential for some to think that if a post is left unsanctioned that there is the potential for some to think that it is left unsanctioned because of what Dr. Hsiung writes in his FAQ that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole?
C Could not there be the potential for some to think that if the administration is unwilling to reply to my request for a determination, that the statment in question is civil?
Is not no answer, an answer?
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:682301
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686744.html