Posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 21:09:24
In reply to Lou's reply to Toph--may benefit, posted by Lou Pilder on June 15, 2013, at 20:29:23
> > > It would seem to me that when Bob says that "it may be good for this community to see that posts by you (Lou) don't have to be responded to" that he is including both you and himself in that community, and therefore, he suggests that both you and Bob may benefit from unresponded notifications.
> > >
> > > Toph,
> > You wrote,[...he IS including both you and himself..].
> > I do not think that anyone can read other people's minds and in this case know what Mr Hsiung's reasons in his mind are for allowing the posts in question to remain outstanding other than what can be seen. What can be seen is that he does state that it MAY be good for the community to see that posts by me do not have to be responded to. There are historical parallels here that I am prohibited to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung.
> > Now I do not think that it would be good for this community to leave my requests/notifications outstanding unless {good} could mean that Jews and others could be victims of anti-Semitic violence due to that anti-Semitic statements are allowed to stand by My Hsiung and his deputy now and his previous deputies, so that some may consider hatred toward the Jews to be supportive here and then good for the community. For you see, Mr Hsiung states that if a post does have an anti-Semitic statement in it, and it is allowed to stand, then he considers it to be civil and supportive because support takes precedence and if something is not sanctioned, people can think that it is civil here. As to if Mr Hsiung considers the anti-Semitic statement to reflect his thinking about Jews, I do not think is relevant because it is not what he thinks that readers can see, but readers can see as to if the statement is sanctioned or not. Then readers could be led to believe that what is not sanctioned is supportive here in this community. And if there is bystander apathy, that also can contribute to readers thinking that. And if hate is allowed, which Mr Hsiung agrees with me could cause murder, then by Mr Hsiung leaving my requests/notifications outstanding, Jews, in particular but not limited to, could be victims of the hate, for the target people in the statements in question are the Jews in particular but not limited to in some of the anti-Semitic statements allowed to stand which could insult Islam and other faiths as well.
> > Now what kind of sub set of people could think that it may be good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications?
> > This is the danger, in particular to Jews but not limited to them. There are statements that are defaming to Jews and Islamic people and others also. If that is considered to be good by Mr Hsiung, then hate could be considered to be good. And what kind of sub set of people could think that it maybe good to see that Mr Hsiung does not have to respond to my requests/notifications? Are you in that sub set of people here?
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/adin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> >
> > Toph,
> You wrote,[...you and (Mr Hsiung ) may benefit from unresponded notifications...].
> Oh yeah? What benefit is there for hate to be allowed to stand here? What benefit is there to MrHsiung? There is no benefit to me, my friend. Is there benefit to you? If so, what is it?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1034151.html
>
> Toph,
My apology. In reviewing the posts here,I just saw that I had asked you previously if you are in the sub set of people that see that it is good for my notification/requests to not be responded to.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1045255
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1045361.html