Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2014, at 19:36:07
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2014, at 22:39:22
> > A. It is my intent, Lou, to allow the statement in question to stand.
>
> False. It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > B. I have a justification, or excuse ,Lou, for me not posting that the statement is not in accordance with my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
>
> True. I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
>
> > B. I agree, Lou, that innocent readers such as a Jewish child, or a child that is of another Abrahamic faith, finding this site in a search that is in depression, could feel humiliated when they read the post in question as not being sanctioned and go deeper into depression and could commit suicide after reading the post in question and seeing that it could be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that I have stated that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as a whole.
>
> True, that's possible. But it would require jumping to a conclusion (that it was supportive and good for the community). But you posting a reply could prevent jumping to that conclusion.
>
> > C. I am not concerned, Lou, that there could be consequences to innocent readers when they see that the statement in question stands, for if I was concerned, I would post a repudiation to the statement now.
>
> False. I'm concerned, which is why I'm trying to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > D. A way for me to post a repudiation to the statement in question will be____________________
>
> I believe that you posting a repudiation would address the issue more effectively than me posting a repudiation.
>
> > E. I am not going to post to the statement in question something like what I posted concerning the other anti-Semitic statements that you, Lou, showed me my error to, for my justification for not doing that is:_____________________________
>
> I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
>
> > F. By my allowing the statement to stand, Lou, that will be good for his community as a whole because:_______________________________________
>
> It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > G. I understand, Lou, that statements that put down Jews or others are not in accordance with my rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, but I am going allow this one in question here to stand because: ________________
>
> It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you...].
The elemaents that I would like to see in any reply are anything that you want to post so that it says that:
A. the statements in question are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and:
B. the statement is not in accordance with your rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
Since it is your rule that the statement is not in accordance with, I can not post a repudiation to it for it is not my rule, but yours. If I was to post the repudiation, others could still post statements of the nature that the post could purport because I am not in authority to sanction what is not in accordance with a rule, for I can not be in place of the moderator.
Now what I am reading here could be that you will post the remedial action and together we will plan on what to post.
I will concede that you can post anything that could show that you do not want anti-Semitic statements and other statements that could put down those of other faiths to be seen by a subset of readers as supportive, for you say that support takes precedence and that unsanctioned posts could be seen by a subset of readers as being supportive and conducive to the civic harmony of this community. If I posted, I could only speak for myself and not put out the fire of hate, for I did not draft the rule. But if you posted the repudiation, you would be speaking from the one that drafted the rule, to put out the fire before it becomes a forest fire, that has the authority to put out the fire of hate that could still be burning because the statement remains unsanctioned.
And be it as it may be, I would like then to go to the next post in question where the poster offers a link to anti-Semitic statements in John 5 even if you want to discuss this statement in question further, for we could recess for this one for now and come back to it later.
Lou PIlder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1050116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1058061.html