Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2012, at 11:34:31
In reply to Lou's reply-support, posted by Lou Pilder on February 11, 2012, at 17:18:33
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by what you just posted to me here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > A. If something MIGHT {not be}, then could it be also true that the something {could be}?
> > B. Now your position here is that something MIGHT not be. Well, the forum is for support and education. If what you are prohibiting me from posting here is not educational, could you post here what your rationale could be for making such a conclusion, if that is what you are concluding?
> > C. If you are not concluding that what you are prohibiting me from posting here is not educational, then if there is some other reason for you to make such a prohibition to me here, could you post that rationale here?
> > D. The forum is for support. Now if you are concluding that what you are prohibiting me from posting here is not supportive, could you post here what your rationale could be to make such a conclusion, if that is the conclusion that you are making?
> > E. I am trying to save lives here and to give educational material so that people might not get a life-ruining condition and to avoid addiction and to have a way to overcome addiction and depression. By the nature of this prohibition to me by you in question here, I am prohibited from posting what IMHHHHO could open up a whole new world for people to embrace and possible have their lives saved if this educational material from me was not prohibited by you to be posted here. I ask: Is it supportive for you to prohibit me from posting what you are prohibiting me from posting? If you make the claim that your prohibition to me IS supportive, then could you post here your rationale for such?
> > F. You can control the content here with your prohibitions to me. But what good for the community as a whole could that effect? If you have some {good} that could come out of denying members to see the educational material that I could post here, what could that {good} be?
> > G. Your prohibitions to me here have the potential to keep some from knowing the historical record concerning psychotropic drugs. By what authority do you use, if any, to prohibit me from posting educational material about psychotropic drugs that if the facts were known, IMHO members could have more information to make a more informed decision as to take or not, mind-altering drugs that could cause death or a life-ruining condition to them? Your statement about {civic harmony}, if defined by you here, could go a long way for others to understand your prohibitions to me here, for if you post what you mean by that here, others could see my response to you here,if I post one, if you go ahead and answer me here with what you mean by {civic harmony}. Be advised, my friend, that IMHHHHO, (reacted by respondent)in your administration of (redacted by resppondent)are allowing pages of my requests to you that go back days and weeks and months and years to remain outstanding that could have the potential IMHO to advance (redacted by respondent) toward Jews and have the potential to arouse (redacted by respondent) both to world Jewery and me as a Jew. By the nature that my requests to you remain outstanding, IMHHHHHO I could be a victim of antisemitic violence, either physically or emotionally until IMHO you post reponses to my outstanding requests. You can post your prohibition to me here, so could not you also post answers to my requests that are outstanding on the administration board? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to post responses to you and your deputy and to anyone else here that could be involved in the outstanding requets from me to you.
> > I do not see how I am a threat to the {harmony} , whatever that is, of this community so that you have to post a prohibition to me that IMHO if I coould post here what those prohibitions prohibit, IMHO lives could be saved.
> > Could not the members step to the music that they hear? And for those that do not like a particular kind of music, not read what I post so that they do not have to hear?
> > Are you wanting to (redacted by respondent) what people can or can not hear?
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In your thinking posted here, you write that {support takes precedence}. Now it is generally accepted that if something takes precedence, it is considerd first. So this means that since you write that in your thinking you do what will be good for the community as a whole, and that support taking precedence will then be good for the community as a whole, by what type of thinking, if any, could you then say that your prohibitions to me here are because of {civic harmony} , whatever that could mean. To follow your thinking here, then {civic harmony} takes precedence if what is prohibited is supportive? This then befuddles my mind because you also state in your TOS here to try and trust you in what you do here. So in my thinking, if support takes precedence as you say, then support takes precedence also over {civic harmony}. This then leads to the potential for some to think that what I am prohibited from posting could be considerd by some to not be supportive.
> But if I could show the chemical structure of psychotropic drugs and how they could kill the one taking them in relation to what you are prohibiting me from posting here, could that exposition of such be considerd by you to be non-supportive and that {civic harmony}, whatever that could be, trumps support if the person could die if what I am prohibited from posting is not allowed by you to be read here? How could that be if support takes precedence?
> You see, I came here when I saw that your Terms of Service is for support and education. I took you at your word.
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung,
In response to your keep reminding you provision, the above.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1010009
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1020778.html