Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2011, at 17:33:45
In reply to corrected link- Lou's response to {your system}-, posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 8:46:10
> > > > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
> > >
> > > > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
> > >
> > > Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung, you wrote that in your system,
> > [...we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm...there could be harm in the future...]
> > That is your system.Looking at the post here that I am requesting that you post in the thread wher it is as to if or if not you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not, I also ask for you to consider in that you say it is your system here to consider if there has been potential harm or there could be harm in the future as a criteria for you to use to sanction a statement .
> > Here is the statement in quuestion in the link in the link:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/200100321/msgs/951879.html
> > Now that statement could cause others here to think that you consider it to be supportive, for you state here that support takes presedence and that antisemitic statements are not to be posted which are those that if a Jew reads it they could be led to feel put down/accused. Your system her, as in your TOS, state not to post what could lead someone to feel put down/accused. In fact your sytem states not to post {anything} that could lead someone to feel put down.
> > History has shown what could happen to Jews and others when the {state} allows to be promulgated statemnts that could preclude Jews and others that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior from forgivness and Eternal Life. The statement then could mean to some that could think in such terms, that the Jewish children murderd and subjected to atrocities, that have been determined to have been crimes against humanity commited by those that are antisemites and claim superiority, to be precluded from forgivness and Eternal Life. Not only thast, but there are those that could think from the statement in question who do accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that the ones that commited the atrocities have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
> > Now I am asking that you post in that thread as to if you consider the statement in and of itself to be supportive or not sdo that the members her could make their own determination as to what you mean here as to if in your system as to you using your judgement as ti if there could be harm to someone from the post in question without you posting in that thread as to if you consider the statement supportive or not. Fot members could think that you do consider it supportive because you state that support takes precedence and not to post what could lead someone to feel put down.
> > Now you state here that you will take rsponsibility for what you post here. And you state that your TOS states that to not post what could lead someone to feel put down. When I became a member here and looked at your system, I took you at your word.
> > You could continue to leave my request unanswerd and there is IMHO the potential of me being a victim of antisemitic violence. Would you take responsibility for that? You sated here that the forum is for support so I think that it falls in your TOS of your system to not leave that thread in question with the ambiguity as to if the statement in question is supportive to you or not.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> corrected:
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.htmlMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder policy, the above.
There is a question from me concerning responsibility.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:951844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/976637.html