Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2006, at 7:40:57
In reply to Lou's response to-There's no such rule, posted by Lou Pilder on December 5, 2006, at 20:21:57
> Friends,
> The new rule about posting previous posts nd new links has in (A) in the previous post by me [...a speech by DR. Martin Luther King jr...]
> I am uncertian if I could post his speech because it is about how the race of people that he was speaking for were oppressed by the state. Later, civil rights laws were passed because of his efforts to have racial equality addressed by the government.
> Now Dinah has posted that she thinks that I can not post about historical state-sponsored antisemitism.So could I post what shows state-sponsored racism? And the post is one that I had previously posted. So if I posted it again, could it not be considered uncivl now and thearfore I could not post a link to that previos post?
> Do you see why I am unsure as to what posts or links I can or can not post? Is Dr. King's speech uncivil because he was speaking about how the race that he was trying to have equality for was opressed? Then do you see my concern about that I can not post here about historical state-sponsored antisemitism?
> LouFriends,
You have seen some of the aspects of why I am unsure as to what links that I can or can not post here due to new rules made here when I rejoined the community. There was also another rule made about posting a link to a blog that Dinah writes that one can not post the link to it here on the board. She writes that it could be done by emailing it. That is one reason why I provide my email address here so that I can email the links to the posts in question to those that are interested, for I am unsure as to which links that I can post or not post here because of this change in policy here about links to posts here.
This brings up as to why one can not post the link to a blog here and if you can not post a link to a blog, then that leads me to have uncertianty as to if one can post a link to other posts here that could be related in some way to the reason for that one can not post a link to a blog, whatever that reason may be. Can you see more now why I am unsure about what links can or can not be posted here?
Now if we look at (D}, {a post by a member that has been deemed civil here}, what if I was to post a link to a post here that was said to be acceptable, but the new polcy after I rejoined the community now states that that type of post is uncivil. Could I post a link to that post? This is why I am unsure as to what you can post about or what you can not post about and asked DR. Hsiung to clarify the ones that I have posted here.
Then there is the aspect of if the new rule policy is directed at me in particular and that others that post what I am told that I can not post will be allowed to do so, and I would not be allowed. I would like for anyne interested in that aspect to email me so that you could make your own determinationas to if there is the potential in your opinion to arrive at that conclusion or not.
I am also unsure if I can send those links to DR. Hsiung in advance for a determination from him without the condition from him of asking someone else first as to what they think about the post's acceptibility. If you are a person that knows for sure as to if I can do that or not, I would appreciate your email to me if you like, or a post here in this thread of your certainty as to why or why not I could send in advance a post for approval or not, without a condition that I ask someone else first. There is dialog here between me and Dr. Hsiung about this and does he not write that I would need to ask another by them emailing me because the post could be uncivil and thearfore it could not be done on the board? I am unsure at this time if Dr. Hsiung has rescinded his request to me, or if it is a requirement to me, that I have another review it first, before I send it to him for a determination as to if it is acceptable or not.
Then there is (H), {a historical document}.
I am unsure if I can post a link to a historical document because of the new policy about posting links. For instance, Dinah writes that I can not post about historical state-sponsored antisemitism because,(and I do not understand the reasoning put forth to justify the prohibition to me) I guess she is meaning that Jews could feel put down by reading that they were once subjected to state-sponsored antisemitism. If that is the case, does not the link show that they were once subjected to oppression, but in 1947 they were vindicated and received their own country in 1948? And does not the link in question show how state-sponsored antisemitism is uncivil and unsupportive and that those tactics used for state-sponsored hate could be brought out here for educational purposes as per the mission of the forum for support and education? Has not ZZDuk posted that she/he has been educated in some positive way here by my posts?
If I can not post a link to a historical document because it might, if this is according to this forum's policy, lead someone to feel put down, I ask you if I could post a link to the Bill of Rights? Could not those that do not want there to be a Bill of Rights feel put down because they may be fascists or neo-Nazis that do not want Jews and other minorities and some others to have equal rights? I ask, could I post a link to the historical document that expelled the Jews from all Spainish lands in 1492?. And could I post a link to the historical document that wrote prohibited black people from sitting in the front of the bus?
I ask, can you be sure what you can or can not post a link to here? If you say that you can, please post what the criteria is that you use to be sure that a link to a post can be posted here and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:706108
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/710806.html