Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2013, at 8:10:03
In reply to Lou's reminder-duyutehyk?, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2012, at 6:02:09
> > > > The ongoing push for "civility" clearly illustrates an illogical (and IMO unhealthy) desire to externalize the responsibility for one's feelings.
> > >
> > > What about responsibility for one's postings?
> > >
> > > > I agree that calm discussion is more desireable than heated argument, but that is is an ideal, not reality. And Bob (and others) seems to be constantly seeking this impossible ideal from a one-sided perspective which says, "If you word everything just right, everything will be peachy". I'm advocating a middle ground where people are encouraged to be aware of and learn to avoid painful and damaging emotional hijackings, to stay in control despite what others may say. ... To practice calm in the face of chaos is transforming, and will often have the effect of calming the attacker.
> > >
> > > I agree, it's an impossible ideal. This community will never be 100% civil 100% of the time. But IMO trying to be civil is still worthwhile. And members have, as you say, the right not to remain members.
> > >
> > > I advocate staying in control of one's postings despite what others may say. To be civil in the face of emotional hijackings can be transforming. :-)
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[...What about responsibility for one's postings?...]
> > I am unsre as to what you are wanting to mean here. You have postings that you say that your drafting of your rule gives members here the {OK} to post statements that couls lead a Jew to feel put down, which are antisemitic statements. You say that it is [OK} to post those type of statements as your drafting of you ru;lle says. But for a statement ot be {OK} here, could mean that it is {OK} by you for members to post it but not also meaning tht the statement is supportive, and you write that support takes precedence.
> > You also state that using a word like {only} , precludes others and is not supportive. Yet today , there is my request to you outstanding here for you to post in the thread in question to clear up as to if you are or or not wanting the statement in question to mean that it is or is not supportive.
> > You ask about the responsibility for postings. Could you post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that your posting is one that you will take responsibility for if I or another Jew or an Islamic person or anyonee else is harmed because they one inflicting any such harm read your post that says that you drafted your rule that allows a statement that IMO could arrouse antisemitic feelings or anti other feelings toward those that have a faith that says to them that they can have Eternal Life and forgivness another way than the {only} way as posted that you are allowing here to be {OK} to be posted here?
> > For instance, suppose a child is bullied that is Islamic or Jewish in a school and is harmed or even killed and the killer says that they saw on Dr Bob's site that {only} and it gave the killer a false superiority to use those , like Jews , that do not accept that claim, as outlets for their sadism in the perpetration of a hate crime. Would you take responsibility for the death or injuries that the Jewish child or other incurred if it wasshown that the bully acted on what you posted?
> > Here is a link to links that have my request outstanding.
> > Lou Pilder
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder policy, the above.
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
In regards to your policy to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:953893
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1038225.html