Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthefrst

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 14:33:37

In reply to Re: It was a generalization » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2005, at 13:36:32

> I know yours was a generalization. I was talking about the post you were answering.
>
> But - if a person were really making those type remarks it is highly unlikely that Dr. Bob would consider them civil in the first place so it's a non-issue as far as I can see.
Friends,
It is written above about [...those type of remarks...highly unlikely that Dr.Bob...it's a non issue...].
I am requesting that if you are going to respond to this aspect of this thread that you ask yourself the following:
A. What could be in a statement that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
B. Could a statement that writes that [...the only way to the Father is through Jesus...]have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings? If not, could you clarify why it could not?
C. Could a statement that wrote epithets about jews have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
D. Could a statement that spoke to jewish ancestry, in a manner of concern to jews, have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
E. Could a statement that depicted the religious leaders of ancient Israel as hypocrites have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings?
F. Could a statement that depicted the God of the Jews as cantankerous and vengfull arrouse antisemitic feelings?
G. Could a statement that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings be allowed to be posted here because it is part of the official verses of a poster's church here? If so, could a supremist group post their doctrins here, such as the Aryan Nation or could someone post a link to the web site of Randy Crow?
H. Can a statement be posted here that has the potential to arrouse antisemitc feelings because it is in the Bible? If so, then could you clarify how this could be if there is a rule here that writes that even if one quotes another , that does not protect an uncivil statement?
Lou

Thread

Question about the 3 complaint rule Nikkit2 8/4/05
...
Lou's response to AM's post-B Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Re: It's up to Dr. Bob to decide » Lou Pilder AuntieMel 8/4/05
Lou's response to AM's post-altignr? Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-revrs Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » Lou Pilder gardenergirl 8/4/05
Re: I'm sure hoping » gardenergirl AuntieMel 8/4/05
It was a generalization » AuntieMel gardenergirl 8/4/05
Lou's response to gg's post-arusatisemfeligs? Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Re: It was a generalization » gardenergirl AuntieMel 8/4/05
Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » gardenergirl gabbii 8/4/05
Lou's response gg's post- Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Lou's response gg's post- the 2end link Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthefrst Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Re: It was a generalization » AuntieMel gardenergirl 8/4/05
Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread-inthe » Lou Pilder NikkiT2 8/4/05
Re: Lou's response to Am's post-PBCdoesnotcount? » gabbii gardenergirl 8/4/05
Sorry Nikki » NikkiT2 gardenergirl 8/4/05
Lou's response to aspects of this thread-izthsit? Lou Pilder 8/4/05
Yes, Lou. See my post above to Nikki (nm) » gardenergirl gardenergirl 8/4/05
The three requests, three posts, and Bob's respons » Lou Pilder gardenergirl 8/4/05
Re: Lou's response gg's post- the 2end link » Lou Pilder gardenergirl 8/4/05
No, GG, you weren't first AuntieMel 8/4/05
Okay, thanks » AuntieMel gardenergirl 8/4/05
Re: Requests, posts, and responses » gardenergirl Minnie-Haha 8/4/05
Lou's response to AM's post-~spcfic Lou Pilder 8/4/05
...
Re: Take care Lou (nm) alexandra_k 8/12/05

Post a new follow-up

Notify the administrators

Start a new thread

poster:Lou Pilder thread:537380
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537502.html

	for
in