Posted by Lou Pilder on September 20, 2015, at 10:04:58
In reply to correction to the correction to link for -bhdphay, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2014, at 15:50:40
> > > > > > As a result of our discussion, I reconsidered and revised that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1069145.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no revision at all
> > > >
> > > > Before, I said:
> > > >
> > > > > > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > > >
> > > > Above, I revised that:
> > > >
> > > > > > I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > > to make the revision, there would have to be some disclosure that has not been posted in your TOS/FAQ yet
> > > >
> > > > I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ.
> > > >
> > > > > the grammatical structure has an implied condition for salvation, that is to be a Christian and not a Jew.
> > > >
> > > > A subset of readers could see that as a condition that was implied. I myself see it as a conclusion that could be jumped to.
> > > >
> > > > > Let us reason together. If you change your rule to allow you to leave defamation toward the Jews and me here un sanctioned, could not even more harm could come to me and Jews here? If not, why not?
> > > >
> > > > I agree, if I don't sanction it, harm could come to you. But that's only one side of the equation. If I do sanction it, could harm come to others?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > You wrote in my response to you that for there to be a revision the FAQ would need to have the revision in it as to be a disclosure to the readers here, that:
> > > [...I disagree, some clarifications are posted here and never make it into the FAQ...].
> > > Let us look at this post and in it you say that it is not in the FAQ.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2014004/msgs/1068732.html
> > > Now after reading what is in that post, you wrote about not being in the FAQ.
> > > What was behind you writing that?
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > correction to link
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140304/msgs/1068732.html
> >
> correction to the correction:
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068732.html
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I agree, if I don't sanction it harm will come to you...].
The harm is compounded in that you are denying me equal protection of your rules, and worse, you try to justify the discrimination where I see no justification is deserved.
Since you know that harm could come to me by you leaving anti-Semitism to be seen as supportive by you here, which causes harm to me, that same harm could come to all Jews.
I am asking you now to:
A. Address each anti-Semitic statement that you are allowing to be seen as supportive by you to stop the harm by opening up each post and typing right in the text something like:
Owner's note:
I should have known better than to keep a post like this up to be seen as civil.
For harm could come to all Jews because the post insults Judaism and I could be seen to be validating the hate because I have not sanctioned it. And worse, a subset of readers could think that I am in concert with the members here that post anti-Semitic propaganda because I allow them to be exempt from my enforcement policy. This also could lead a subset of readers to think that I am being malicious in that they could think that my intent is to cause harm to Jews because a reasonable person would have seen a probability that Jews would be exposed to the risk of harm by me allowing the anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive by me, since being supportive takes precedence.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1050116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1082726.html