Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 17:26:10
In reply to To clarify » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on July 2, 2014, at 16:02:49
> I blocked myself in the hope that you would consider me suitably punished and leave me alone. Instead you did the opposite. Had you left me alone, I'd have honored my block.
>
> In case there is any doubt, I was not admitting to fostering anti-semetism. I was referring to your "anxieties" and your interpretations of my actions, posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have a long history of support of the Jewish faith and Jewish people. The idea of promoting anti-semetism is so abhorrent to me that it makes me physically ill to see the accusations, or rather the "anxieties" about me posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> In my mind, accusing someone of something so heinous as fostering anti semetism is defamation of character. Of course, in Dr. Bob's mind, it isn't. And he runs Babble.
>
> I have admitted to having been uncivil to you, even though my intent was to argue with Dr. Bob, not to try to hurt you. I regret any hurt I might have caused you.
>
> That's *all* I regret and all I admit to.
>
> Clearly my attempt to appease you failed. You will continue to post your "anxieties" towards me over and over and over and over and over again. And now you will even, again, post (gee, I wonder what the euphemism is in this case) your threats of legal action, no doubt over and over and over and over and over and over again.
>
> And there is nothing on earth I can do to stop it. I can't appease you, I can't convince Bob. I am totally without power to end this. I just have to bend over and take it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.D,
By you blocking yourself, that does not annul the fact that what you wrote about my character that is in question is standing un repudiated with not a link to it from Mr. Hsiung stating that what you wrote about me is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and not in accordance with a rule of his. By him leaving the statement un repudiated, a subset of readers could think that what you wrote about me will be good for this community as a whole. His rationale for leaving it un repudiated is that it has been archived. He admits that there could have been a notification from me before it was archived, but he has stated that he will honor notifications with the exception of some of mine. I contend that for anyone to make a determination as to if they will or will not honor a notification here, that reading it could be paramount in making that decision.
But be it as it may be, I am not looking for him to block you, but to post a repudiation to your statement about my character as per sanctions like others. I object to having different terms and conditions imposed on me here or anyplace else, and I will not allow defamation to stand against me by objecting to it here. My objection is not that you were not sanctioned by him posting to the statement in question, but to the statement being allowed to be seen as supportive in the thread where it is posted by e nature that he has not posted a link to the statement in the thread where it was originally posted. I do not think that it will be good for this community as a whole for that statement against my character to be seen like that here. As far as legal action, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on this next term in a parallel case where the owner of a site allowed others to defame a person and orchestrated the defamation which is different from being a neutral party. Here, Mr. Hsiung states that he can ignore his own rules and allow what could put down or accuse someone if it will be good for this community as a whole as the site could be improved. I will not allow that by objecting to it. And I am preparing my brief to sshow the court to understand that allowing the owner to allow others to post defamation and anti-Semitism without posting a sanction to the post where it was originally posted could lead to tragic consequences and I expect to be heard loud and clear by showing those judges the posts that put down Jews and defame me that Mr. Hsiung has not posted a repudiation to where the post was posted originally. He says that he can allow what could lead someone to feel put down or accused if by allowing it, improvement to the community will happen, so readers could think that is what is happening because it will be good for this community as a whole as to whatever he does and asks others to trust him at that. I do not see how that could be good for this community as a whole and wonder why anyone here would want those statements in question to go un repudiated.
As to what you can do, you could go to the posts in question that I want a repudiation posted to and post as to if you do or do not consider the statement to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to have it remain un repudiated without a statement from M Hsiung posted to the statement in the thread where it was originally posted. You could start with, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}and then I will give another one.
Mr. Hsiung says at he has "indirectly" sanctioned the statement. I d not honor "indirect" sanctions because as in this case, his sanction of the vulgar word does not tell readers that the anti-Semitic statement is sanctioned, for that can not be see. I know of readers that say that there is no such thing as an "indirect" sanction, for a sanction says that something is wrong and there could be consequences to the poster if it is done again. What I would like for you to do is post somethimg to that statement where I was originally posted like:
Readers, be advised that when I was a deputy of record of this post, I did not sanction it because__________________________________
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1067704
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1067790.html