Posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 9:40:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response, posted by Dr. Bob on July 10, 2005, at 8:32:13
> > > > Sometimes it's more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply, or even not to read in the first place.
>
> Sorry, that didn't come out right. What I meant was:
>
> Sometimes it's more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare" just not to reply. If it's hard not to reply, another alternative is not even reading in the first place.
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
I have read your reply to me above and I am requesting that you delete your part that you wrote to the poster about {...not reading...}. I feel that there is still the potential for the potential of some others to think that you are in some way advocating or suggesting that others here not read what I write, even with your change in what you wrote innitially, for your changed statement is not available to be seen unless one follows another link to the administrative board and follows to your changed statement.
Another aspect of this is if it is necessary for you to write the part about,[...not reading...]? Could not the first part,{do not reply}, be suffitiant? For is it that you think that some others here can not help themselves by being uncivil when they read what I write? If this is so, what is it that I write that you think that there are some others here that have to {...not read...} in order to stay away from writing uncivil replies to me? Could not those people abide by the civility code here {after reading} what I write? If you are suggesting to some members here that when they see the name "Lou Pilder" as the poster of a post, to {...not read...},could that not have the potential for some others to think that you are advocating "shunning" toward me even with your changed statement,[...another alternative is to not read...]?
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:525619
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525705.html