Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 11:09:43
In reply to Lou's request t Dr.Hsiung-precept upon precept(pp), posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2006, at 10:37:39
Dr. Hsiung,
In the olp vs pp, let us look at what you wrote:
First, I agree that posting by breaking down into individual precepts could mean that more than 3 consecutive posts could be seen. But this is because of the nature of the breaking down that does not lend itself to have what is being taught to be seen untill the individual parts that have been broken down can be assembled. This does account for the possibility of even 10 consecutive posts to be made before what is veiled can be uncovered by breaking down into single precepts to be seen.
I ask;
A. Is it supportive for you to have your rule if it prevents me from giving support to those that could benifit from seeing statemnts that have the potential IMO to be accusative or put down Jews or other's faiths, that are veiled, to be uncovered by me posting 7 consecutive posts?
B. Is it civil of you to have your rule that could have the potential to allow uncivil statements including, but not limited to, statements that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings if your rule prevents me from exposing those statemnts by me posting 7 consecutive posts, as to be uncivil according to your rules here?
C. Do you give a higher priority to you and/or those wanting me to not be allowed to post pp [and advocate olp], that could result in 7 consecutive posts because it will {give more of a chance },>even if I am not requesting their help to join in<, as you write in your FAQ?
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:692056
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692062.html