Posted by Lou Pilder on July 13, 2005, at 17:01:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo Tamar-Platrs » Lou Pilder, posted by Tamar on July 13, 2005, at 5:30:58
Friends,
It has been asked in some way here to clarify in some way what this thread is about.
The statement by Dr. Hsiung to the poster about the poster's post to me is:
[...more conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read}...]
In my opinion,I feel that there is the potential for one to think after reading that, that there is a {risk}of replying in an uncivil manner to reading either my posts or all posts here. If so, could there be the potential for some others to think that the risk be different if they are replying to my posts, verses all the rest of the posts? If so, then what ,in your opinion, is there in the statement by Dr. Hsiung that {rules out that potential} for some others to think that the risk is not only spacific to my posts?
Another aspect is if the post by Dr. Hsiung is if it is a suggeation or a reminder or something else. I ask, does it matter? If so, could you clarify the difference as to if it does matter?
Another aspect is that Dr. Hsiung did modify his statement. I ask, does Dr. Hsiung's change to what he wrote in the first place alter the meaning of his original statement? If so, could you clarify why it does?
Now if Dr. Hsiung is saying that the poster has the alternative to not read in the first place, then how could anyone take that position to not read, what I write, if I do not give in the subject line as to what I would be writing about, unless it is only my name that is the name of the poster of the post? I ask you, would not one have to click on my post, and read it, to know what it is about, since I generally only put in the subject line who I am responding or replying to and a code that is for my purposes to use to go back to the post if needed?
Lou
>
>
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:525619
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/527216.html