Posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 7:15:04
In reply to Lou's reply to Honore--~con? » Honore, posted by Lou PIlder on January 31, 2007, at 5:55:11
> > Lou, I don't know exactly what your concern is.
> >
> > I am more concerned about trying to help you to communicate with Bob, so that you can resolve your concerns.
> >
> > So far as I understand them, my judgment about the importance of posts *in the past,* that is, in the archives, but not having been posted on Psychobabble during the recent past, is different from yours.
> >
> > Ie, I am not concerned about their present-day impact on readers of Psychobabble.
> >
> > ---note: I define "recent past" as the last six months.
> >
> > However, I would like to see you be able to resolve your concerns more to *your* satisfaction.
> >
> > To that end (ie your achieving a better resolution in your own mind, to your concerns), I suggested that you could resend the request to Dr. Bob.
> >
> > Also, I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend. This is because sometimes Bob may overlook a request accidentally, or without knowing it. This isn't prejudice, just an honest mistake.
> >
> > So I thought you might be less worried about the clarification of what gg or Bob meant in prior posts to you, if you were less worried about resending.
> >
> > Maybe that didn't help. But being of some help was my intention.
> >
> > Honore
> >
> Honore,
> You wrote,[...I am >not concerned< about {their} present-day impact of readers on Psychobabble...].
> I am unsure as to why you are {not concerned} about any present-day impact of some statements that have not been notated as being uncivil here. Could you elaborate some more about what statements are those that you are not concerned about and why you are {not concerned}? Are you not concerned about, for instance, posts that have statements IMO that historically have been used to foster the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, as to their impact on readers here in relation to them seeing statements of that nature to be allowed to stand without an administrative sanction that they are uncivil? It is my deep conviction that to estinguish any flames of defamation or discrimination that have the potential to be seen toward Jews here, could provide a clearer path to have social justice for all people.
> Lou
> >
>
> Honore,
You wrote,[...I believe that it is not a double standard for you to resend.This is because sometimes Dr. (Hsiung) may overlook a request accidently, or without knowing it...].
I am unsure as to what you mean here.
Are you saying any of the following?
A. It is a double standard for you to resend if Dr. Hsiung did not overlook it?
B. It is a double standard even if he did overlook it because you have posted that you sent it according to the procedure that one here is to follow?
C. It is not a double standard to deny you the response if they are not in receipt of your request,but it is a double standard if they are in receipt of your request and are unwilling to respond. But by the nature that the deputy has posted {never mind}, the administration is now taking back their own offer to check for outstanding posts to Lou and thearfore, in your opinion, is a double standard unless they post that the offer to check for outstanding posts is withdrawn to all members here?
D. It is a double standard if the procedure in question to check outstanding requests is not honored to you, Lou, even if the offer to check outstanding requests is withdrawn to all members?
E. something else
Lou
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:726277
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/728371.html