Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 8:19:22
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
> Dr. Hsiung,
> I am requesting the immediate reinstatement of the poster "so".
> There are many reasons for my request to you.
> The first of these is that there are many posts here that could fall into the catagory of your posting code here to not be acceptable, yet the poster is not expelled. If "so" is held out to be the only poster to be accountable to your code, while others that have written unacceptable posts and not be held accountable, then the selective accountability to "so" raises many questions as to if your sanction of "so" is a sound mental-health practice.
> The United States Constitution, and other constitutions, have clauses that speak to "equal protection". The general meaning of such is that if there are others that are allowed, then this one could be allowed also. Sometimes it is referred to as prohibiting "selective enforcment".
> Lou PIlderDr. Hsiung,
In my rquest for the reinstatement of "so", I cited the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution.
In the same time period that "so" posted, there is the post her that writes,
[...SOme peoPLe...have too much time on their hands...].
I had posted here about that post and I do not see where you have commented on it as being acceptable here or not. If that means that the post is acceptable here, then that could bring many aspects of the treatment to "so" up for inspection here by interested parties to fairness here.
The post in question could be out of charactor for the administrative board, but it is not redirected. Some people could make the association that "so" is the "SO" in the [...SOme people have too much...]. This IMO, could have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward "so" and IMO could have the potential for a hostile environment toward "so" to be fostered, because it is left unaddressed by the moderators when there is IMO the potential to be incitive toward "so". Since the resulting atmosphere on the forum toward "so" was not checked by the moderators at the point that the post was innitiated, then IMO, "so" could have the potential to be subjected to the potential of public ridicule here and there was the potential for the potential,IMO for "so" to be provoked, which provocation could IMO, could have been prevented by administrative intervention at the point of innitiation of the post in question .
This leads to the concept of ,"did the administration {foster} the potential provocation toward "so" by not addressing the post in question? If so, then is that a sound mental-health practice to allow the post in question to go unaddresed and expell "so" if what he/she posted after that was a result of the provication while the poster of the post in question is not expelled?
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:531449
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/531458.html