Posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2011, at 13:52:40
In reply to Lou's request --, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2010, at 11:33:13
> > > Don't forget that Dr. Bob is busy. He doesn't have time to deal with all of your requests.
> >
> > ed_uk2010,
> > You wrote,[...He (Mr. Hsiung) doesn't have time to deal with all of your requests...].
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportuity to respond accordingly.
> > A. What criteria, if any, did you use to make the statement that Mr. Hsiung does not have time to deal with my request?
> > B. The TOS here states that members are to use the notification procedure and that the administration will either post in the thread in question or email the requester with why they are allowing the questionable statement to stand. I am using that procedure along with the reminder procedure to post on the administrative board if there is either not a post in the thread in question addressing the concern or an email to explain why the statement in question is alowed to stand. I have taken Mr. Hsiung at his word and I am awaiting the administration to act on the notifications per Mr. Hsiung's TOS here. I ask;
> > 1.do you know if the notification procedure has been taken out of the TOS here or not?
> > 2. If it has not, and Mr. Hsiung is monitoring the boards, what could the word {busy} be thought to mean by a reasonable person in regards to the outstanding notifications of mine?
> > 3. If a reasonable person could be led to think what you posted above, if you do post to that question, could there be (redacted by respondent)
> > 4. Could you, in your opinion, post here what could be a reasonable period of time for the administration to act on a notification in relation to the stated TOS here?
> > 5. Do you have an idea of if it is supportive or not for the administraion to allow a notification to be outstanding for, let's say, 2 days? If so, and you think that it is supportive, what about 2 weeks or 2 months or 2 years? If you think that it is, and there are people here that are threatening suicide, and could have the potential IMHO to then die as a result of a notification being outstanding, what could be your rationale for thinking that leaving the notification outstanding for that time period be supportive?
> > 6. other questions/answers related to the above
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> If you or someone that you are considering to invite to join this discussion are considering posting a response here, I am requesting that you consider the following.
> Let us look at the issues here which are that there are many outstanding notifications and requests of different natures from me to Mr. Hsiung. Mr. Hsiung has in his TOS here that guests usse a notification procedure that he says that he then will act on the notification in that there will be an administrative post in the thread in question or an email will be sent to the requester with why the statement in question is allowed to stand.
> My concern is about the potential consequences that IMHO could happen as a result of the notifications and requests being outstanding which allows a period of time while the notifications are outstanding for some to make assumptions concerning the statement in question because by being outstanding, and Mr. Hsiung states that a match could start a foreat fire, one could be under the impression IMHO that it is OK here to post such if there is not an administrative sanction. And the longer the notification remains outstanding, then that could lead IMHO to the escaltion of the fire.Now if the administrtion will allow the fire to burn for any time at all, and even for days and months and years, a question could be as to are they liable for any deaths or injuries, being physical or emotional, that could happen as a result of the statement being allowed to stand?
> Now what are the potential consequences? Could someone commit suicide as a result of a statement that remains unsanctioned? Could some one be killed or beaten? Are there cases concerning this aspect of a forum owner not sanctioning a statement that could lead to someone feeling put down or accused and the person killed themselves or became a victim of violence?
> And then there is the prohibition by the owner to not post where one can be informed about something, as in my case here. Does the prohibition that keeps me from telling where people can find information, in and of itself, have the potential for one to commit suicide or to bully someoone? And what about statements being allowed that could have the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, or a person of the Islamic faith or other faiths that do not accept the claim of Christiandom that is the subject of concern ongoing here? (citation-as43b).
> You see, different jurisdictions look at this situation in various ways. In a Chinese jurisdiction, the court there in a case of suicide that resulted in some way from what was posted on an internet site, asked;
> Did the owner have a responsibility to act on the post in question in a timely manner and did the failure to do so contribute to the death? If so, the owner then became an accessory to the suicide in that jurisdiction.
> You see, many of you already know what my concerns here are. But there could be much more to this that could be unbeknownst to some.
> You see, antisemitism is agreed to happen here by Mr. Hsiung if a statment has the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down and/or accused. And the TOS here state not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or accused. Now if statements or that nature are allowed to stand, this could have the potential IMHO to open up the possibility of , let's say, a student in a middle school that is Jewish becoming a victim of bullying because he/she is a Jew and suffers hostility because the unsanctioned statement that is antisemitic could lead a bully to consider Jews as inferior, not able to have forgivness or eternal life, because they are a Jew and the statement in question says that Jews do not have such because they have not accepted (redacted by respondent) and the cite is operated by a pychiatrist. There could also be statements that defame Jews with derogatory and dehumanizing statements or blame a Jew for things going wrong (scapegoating). A Jew could be judged by a differnt standard or there could be anti-Judiasm in he form that what Jews believe can not be posted there but taken elsewhere while the foundation of other faiths are allowed to be posted even though (redacted by respondent). It could be allowed to post that Jews are in some type of slavery from their God that they give service and worship to in the form of the Jews keeping commandments from that God to them.
> As a Jew, my relationship to the God that I give service and worship to is like a marriage. It is a covenant relationship, that is founded on love, as in marriage and it is a celebration of continuous joy in the celebration of life. I do not consider myself and other Jews as slaves to anything. The commandments from the God that I give service and worship to have given me freedom from death, and have given me peace and joy that allows me to overcome any person's ignorance toward Jews.
> Lou
> citation as43b
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/949618.htmlFriends,
If you are concerned about that there are numerous outstanding requests from me to the administration here, I would like for those interested to consider the following:
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:970300
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/977440.html