Posted by Lou Pilder on October 13, 2006, at 6:59:29
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2006, at 7:56:13
> DR. Hsiung,
> Could we look at my request to you and your reply to me? If so, , my request to you was the following:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692047.html
> Your reply to me wrote that,[... you think that your policy is >reasonable<...](deputies do not have to intervene).
> Could you then write in this thread what rational you use as an authority to establish that your policy here in a mental-health community, to allow your deputies to leave statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, and could have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew if the statements go unsanctioned, to be {reasonable}?
> Lou Pilder
>
> DR. Hsiung,
Above is my request for you to write what rational or authority you use to say that your policy that allows deputies to leave posts unsanctioned that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or foster defamation toward Jews and/or me as aJew on your forum to go unsanctioned, to be reasonable.
Your reply to Mike, who asked for you to post what you wrote that said that you have written about it before, brought up a link that of a discussion in another thread.
Your citing of;
[...the question foe me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or on the present.
In determining as to if your resply to Mike answers my question to you or not, first let us look at the question that I had to you that Mike was also looking for an answer to.
The question is about your rule that says that deputies never have to intervene.
The word "intervene" is a word that is used to describe when a third party,in this case a deputy, has a function to be >protective< to do something to stop something that could cause harm to someone as their function to sanction by the way of three different ways. An example of the use of intervene, could be to intervene to stop a fight, such as,[..the teacher steppped in to {intervene} betwen the two students to stop a fight...]. Or, the teacher intervened to stop another student from posting a racist flyer on the wall.
In looking at your reply to Mike by citing the link to another thread, I have many concerns as to if your reply to Mike answers my question to you as to [what your rational is for saying that your policy of saying that deputies never have to intercede is {reasonable}]. Your reply to Mike, if it is the same reply to me, talks possibly about deputies leaving posts that are discrimmnatory unsanctioned that are those that they are asked to sanction when they see them a second time, verses them sanctioning them when they see them the first time on the present, for you wrote,[...to focus on the past or on the present...].
My question to you was what is your rational for your rule that says that deputies never have to intervene, which could be the present, to establish that your rule is reasonable. I would like to continue in regards to my concerns here.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:692044
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/694415.html