Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2009, at 20:13:57
In reply to Re: yet another example...., posted by twinleaf on December 15, 2009, at 18:11:50
> I have read over what I wrote, and it reflects what I believe to be true. I can't compromise my integrity in order to placate someone else who holds different views, and who wants to force me to agree with him by means of the power differential which he possesses.. I have already been blocked for about 37 weeks this year.The first time, I readily agreed that I had been uncivil; the other three times, I did not consider the blocks fair or appropriate, as I was objecting to very long blocks given to other posters in what I was sure was a civil manner. Many others joined in objecting to my blocks, Some asked for them to be rescinded, and some even asked for an apology. He is now going to block me for a very long time. He has not blocked anyone since he blocked me for 5 months in July- for courteously objecting to the automatic forwarding of posts to social networks. That action on his part created a huge firestorm here, with many people crossing the line into extreme incivility. He has been sworn at, threatened, insulted and vilified since my last block in July, but he did not block any of those posters, I think that anyone who reads his post to me will not fail to notice the provocative nature of it. But, if I speak up, as I did, in order to assert my right to protection from what definitely felt like subtle abuse by the administrator, he threatens another even longer block. I find it particularly "off" that he is trying to get other people to get me to apologize or retract. They all know I am speaking what I believe to be the truth, and that I would not lie or change my words to prevent punitive actions, no matter how severe they turn out to be. So...I'm a little curious to see how he adds up the math for this next one...
>fl,
You wrote,[...what I wrote...reflects what I believe to be true...I would not lie to change my words to prevent punitive actions...].
I think that there are several good and just aspects of your post here tha deserve comment and exploration by the interested members of the community.
One being that the aspect of what is written is associated with being what is true to you. Now this brings up the thinking as to if something is true to a person, would that allow it to be posted as civil?
If that is allowed, then neo-Nazis could post here what they believe to be true.
Another aspect here is if one retracts what they wrote, could the retraction or apology, then have the punitive action annulled?
The issue though here is that if one apologizes to avoid a punitive action, does an administrative action of allowing an apology to annull a punitive action become in and of itself an unsound mental-health practice? I base this on the historical record where Jews were allowed to avoid expulsion if they converted to another religion. (see for instance the Alhambra Decree)
Now there are other issues here not stated.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:660662
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/929459.html