Posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2013, at 14:21:07
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Mr Hsiung -nieghn, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2013, at 18:00:18
> > > You say that it may be good for this community to see that my posts do not have to be responded to. Why is that?
>
> maybe it is about people feeling responsible for your posts where the only posts they can be responsible for are their own.
>
> sometimes if someone posts something that we believe is incorrect we feel that is is our duty or responsibility to post something in response to that. sometimes we think of it as rescuing people who (we think) may be too vulnerable or stupid to stand back from and think about that post for themselves.
>
> but sometime people are less vulerable and / or less stupid than we believe them to be. realising this can be... liberating. empowering. for us.
>
> maybe it is something to do with that.
>
> Alexandra_k,
You wrote,[...maybe it is something to do with that...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think that you mean by what you wrote. I would like for you to examine the following principles in Mr. Hsiung's policies here and use them to post a response to what you wrote by including the following. If you could, then I think that it could go a long way for readers to have a better understanding of the issues here that I think if resolved, could have the potential to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions and prevent Jews from becoming victims of antisemitic violence. Here are the policies by Mr. Hsiung for this forum's posting policies.
A. Do not post anything that could lead one to feel accused or put down.
B. Posts will be acted on without waiting , for one match could start a forest fire
C. Support takes precedence
D. notifications will either be acted on or the notifying member will be contacted directly
E. people can feel hurt from accusations/put downs posted toward them
F. Mr Hsiung states that if someone wants to know his rationale for what he does to just ask and that Mr Hsuing in his TOS here states that he wants to be fair
G. Mr Hsiung states that if he does not respond to a notification to post a reminder to him and keep reminding him
H. If a statement is allowed to stand, readers could think that what the statement purports is supportive (and civil also according to his drafted rules here)
H. Mr Hsiung states that what he does, is in his thinking, will be good for this community as a whole.
K. Mr Hsiung states that discrimination is an abuse of power along with slavery, segregation, genocide, infanticide and such.
L. Mr Hsiung states that there are people here that he labels as {less-confident} and that a rule was drafted by him to keep members from posting more than 3 consecutive posts (with some exceptions).
M. If that be the case, then it could be that he knows personally of these people as a subset here, or that he knows that in every group there will be the less-confident members. And if there are such in every group, then could not there also be in every group the {more-easily-persuaded}member?
N. Now if there are in every group the {more-easily-persuaded members}, could not those members be easily persuaded to hate Jews and seek to inflict harm toward Jews on the basis that they see anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand and then they could think that they are supportive and civil here by the nature of the policis and practices of Mr Hsiung and his previous deputies and also be good for this community as a whole?
Now if you could post again and use the policies and practices of Mr Hsiung in context with what you wrote, then I could have a better understanding of your post and respond accordingly
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1035187
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1049616.html