Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2007, at 12:01:52 [reposted on August 6, 2007, at 22:49:31 | original URL]
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr.Hsiung-xpstfcto? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2007, at 6:43:05
> > > I am unsutre as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
> >
> > Good question, but I'd like to hear what members of the community think...
> >
> > Bob
>
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reply to me above,[...{but} I'd like to hear what members of the community think...] to my request to you,[..I am unsure as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole|) could mean.
> If we look at the entire request from me to you here it reads;
> [...I am unsure as to what your statement {constructive for |the community as a whole| could mean. Could you give more clarification as to what you could want that to mean in regards to members here posting requests to seek guidance concerning site rules by clarifuing, let's say, how one request for clarification or guidance concerning site rules could be good for the community as a whole and another request for clarification or guidance could not be good for the community as a whole?...]
> I consider my request to you to be in accordance with the TOS here in regards to your policy that it is fine to discuss actions taken by the administration, policy, and if one would want to know your rationale for something to just ask you. Your use of {but} is generally accepted to mean {unless}. It is my understanding that the TOS here is that if anyone would like to know your rationale to just ask you. In your reply,[...>but< I would like to hear what others think...], if you are wanting to mean that the {but} is equilvalent to {unless}, then this is something IMO new to the TOS here. And if so,then could my request be of the nature that it was before a new policy was added to your TOS and be responded to without others giving their thinking?
> In the last part of my request it reads,
> [...If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you could mean as to what is or is not a request for clarification concerning site rules that is good for the community as a whole, or not, and either post a request that could be considered to be good for the community as a whole or to not post what could not be good for the community as a whole...]
> I would like to post my responses by incorporating your rationale for what could be a request that could or could not be good for the community as a whole. I would like to post my responses without any delay because of the importance to me concerning posts here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and/or could lead a Jew to feel put down and/or accused. If I was to know of what your rationale is for what is or is not a request that could be good for the community as a whole, then I could have the opportunity to post accordingly using your rationale for such.
> As to what others think, I am asking that if anyone here is considering to be a respondant in this thread to Dr. Hsiung's wanting to know your thinking, that you state as to if what you think is speculation as to what Dr. Hsiung could mean or it is your own thinking, or if it is fact concerning Dr. Hsiung's thinking and site your authority for such.
> Lou Pilder
> Here is the link to my innitial request to Dr. Hsiung (last part of post).
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.htmlDr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Good..but I'd like to hear what members of the community think...]
That could have the potential IMO to delay your response to my request because of the waiting for others here to post and then waiting for you to respond after that, if you are intending to respond after a member posts. If the member posts and you agree with them, then you could post to confirm their post. And if a member posts and you do not agree with them, you could post as such which still could have the potential IMO of there being more time without my requests to you being answered by you unless you at that point state that you do not agree with them and post what you want to mean.
Either way, if we consider your standard that one match can start a forest fire, any fire that could be burning could spread.
I am requesting that if you are going to wait untill a member posts here so that you could either confirm or not, or not respond to the member's post at all, what they write as being what you mean, that I be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts to respond to the fact that there is going to be a delay in your responding to me as to what you are wanting to mean by,[...good for the community as a whole...].
My response could be one that what you refer to as {less-confident } posters could possibly be that what my response could be might be unbeknownst to them for it will encompass:
A. the history of the concept of {good for the community as a whole} as related to
1. The position of Joseph Stalin
2. The position of Jean Jacques Rousseau
3. The position of National Socilism (NAZI)
4. The position of Benito Mussolini(Fascism)
5. The French Revolution
6. Jeffereson's writings
7. Brown vs Topeka
8. US vs Bob Jones University
9. the 1962 civil rights act (U.S.)
10. the positons of other psychiatrists and psychologists concerning [...good for the community as a whole...]
11. The position of Dr. Martin Luther King jr
12. The position of the now nation of Israel
13. The position of the decisions in 1945-1946 that still hold today.
14. other related positions to the standard of, [...good for the community as a whole...]
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:774451
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20070708/msgs/774451.html