Posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2014, at 17:01:31
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-trcheuslv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2014, at 8:07:45
> > > > readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
> > >
> > > your TOS states that if you are not reading, then your deputies do your wishes and act in your behalf. So the subset of readers that know the TOS here ... could think that the statement is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> >
> > That could be a subset. But they would be jumping to a conclusion, too, since it could have been that the deputies weren't reading the board then, either.
> >
> > > You also wrote that what was said about me, I could post a repudiation. But that IMHO could not show that you are not ratifying what is said about me, which is what is in question.
> >
> > I'm not in a position to ratify (or repudiate) what was said about you. How would I know if you were under any burden? Also, I don't see how a repudiation would decrease the respect and regard in which you were held. Nor do I see posting that you're under a burden as libel. Would posting that Job was under a burden be libel?
> >
> > > You also wrote whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God. But the statement in question uses the word {treacherous} as in a {treacherous form of slavery} that is {imposed} by God.
> >
> > OK, I could address whether saying a God might impose treacherous forms of slavery is putting down that God.
> >
> > > That is a claim that is false, for I am not under any burden from the God that I give service and worship to here for any reason.
> >
> > That's a fine repudiation, could you just post that one sentence on that thread?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that the use of the phrase that a God imposes a treacherous form of slavery is a statement that you could address as a statement that could be seen by a subset of readers as constituting {putting down} that God.
> If I was to post any repudiation, my repudiation does not address as to that a subset of readers could think that by you leaving the statement in question to stand, that you are validating that the statement is not against your rules. By the nature of that the statement stands, anti-Semitic hatred could be fostered as a subset of readers that could think that the statement is supportive by you and will be good for this community as a whole, could post analogous statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. The fact that there are such posts after the one in question was posted, could also lead Jewish readers to feel shamed and humiliated here. There could also be {stigmatization} fostered here of Jews as the statement says that Jews give service and worship to a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery upon them. The statement has been used historically, and I am prevented from posting that here due to your prohibitions posted to me here, which prevents me from posting my own repudiation in the manner that I would want to post. The statement is false, but there is much more to this that I am prohibited by you to post.
> I would like very much for you to do the addressing of the statement, and then go on to the posts that offer links to verses that are anti-Semitic. One of those posts cites John 5. There are others so I am requesting that you choose from them as to which one you would like to address first. The one with {his blood be upon us} Matthew 27:25, is one.Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote that the subset of readers that see a post unsanctioned here could think that what is in the post is not against your rules. This is because you have posted that here.
Then you say that those people would have to jump to a conclusion, that what is in the post unsanctioned is not against your rules, because you and the deputies of record then could have not read the post in question. I say not and here is why.
Your TOS states that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and also that readers are to try to trust you and that you will appreciate it if they did. So the subset of readers that know your TOS here that see unsanctioned posts, could take you at your word that what is in the post is not against your rules as you state. This could mean that those people could think that unsanctioned anti-Semitic statements are not against your rules. Granted, you and all the deputies then could have not read the post in question, but since you state that you do what will be good for this community as a whole, those readers could think that even if you and your deputies then did not read it, the statements in the post that are unsanctioned could be considered by those readers to not be against your rules. They could also know of the notification system and also know that you give yourself the option of not responding to notifications from me and that you think that it will be good for readers to see that you do not have to respond to me. Another aspect of this is that there could be negligence by you and all of the deputies if the statement is unsanctioned and that it should have been. If that be the case, I would like for you to post answer to the following so that I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Were you and the deputies of record in this post in question all negligent in not reading it?
B. If so, could you post an apology for yourself and ask the deputies of record the to also post their individual apology?
C. Would you take responsibility for any deaths or injuries that could be shown to have come to someone as a result of you and your deputies being negligent, if you agree that you and those deputies did not read the statement in question that puts down Jews as that the God that they give service and worship to has imposed a treacherous form of slavery upon them?
D. Do you think that you and your deputies have right to be negligent in regards to not sanctioning posts that are anti-Semitic or ridicule Jews for giving service and worship to the God that delivered their ancestors out of bondage in Egypt?
Lou Pider
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1050116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1058817.html