Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2012, at 18:11:57
In reply to Lou's reminder to to Mr.Hsiung-eyeknpsee, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2011, at 20:17:28
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > You replied to Mike with a link that said that [...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's more helpful to focus on the past or the present...]
> > My request to you was in the following post.
> > I asked for you to write your rational for having your policy that allows your deputies to not have to intervene when the statements could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to foster defamtion toward Jews and me as a Jew on the forum if the statements were allowed to stand unsanctioned, as to why you write that you think that your policy is reasonable.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692936.html
> > Are you saying that your answer means that;
> > [...Posts that do accuse Jews or put them down can be left unsanctioned by the deputies and that could be a reasonable policy here,because even if that could constitute discrimination by being left unsanctioned, your thinking is to ask yourself not if the leaving them unsanctioned could cause discrimination to occur, due to the that you use the criteria of to think if it is {more helpful} to let those posts of that nature stand unsanctioned so you or the forum's members or both could {focus on the present}? If so, why could you not {focus on the present} if the deputies did sanction them since posts that accuse or put down others are sanctioned?
> > Lou
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder provision, the above.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
In regatds to your policy to keep reminding you, the above
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:692044
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1006625.html