Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2012, at 17:49:51
In reply to Silence, posted by Twinleaf on January 5, 2012, at 20:49:12
> This seems like the last thing one would expect! A few years ago, he risked almost universal disapproval from Babble members for insisting on connecting to the social networks. At that time, it seemed that he truly believed that these were where the future lay. Even though I was outspoken here about the importance of preserving as much privacy as possible on Babble, I had a sneaking suspicion that he might have been more farsighted than I personally was on this issue. I think he felt that the networks would provide important new sources of posters and information exchange. His recent professional activities had their main focus on the new possibilities for psychiatry seemingly promised by the information age.
>
> What has happened?Tl,
You wrote,[....What has happenend?...].
Let us reason together. Mr. Hsiung 's TOS states that he doesn't wait to sanction a post because one match could start a foreat fire. He also states that he does what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole. And he states that support takes precedence as well.
Now without the administration performing what the functions in their TOS, forest fires could start, statements that are not supportive could be considered by some to be supportive, and some could think that it will be good for the community as a whole to allow statements that could arouse antisemitic feelings or defame Jews. The historical parallels are in the historical record. I am prohibited here by rules made to me by Mr. Hsiung from posting those paralles from the years 1933 to 1945 and beyond (see operation paperclip), even though the goals of the forum include education.
Now also consider that Mr. Hsiung's TOS includes that he has a deputy to do his wishes in the administration of the community. Note that the deputy also is silent recently. This brings up a lot of conjecture as to the recent silence of both, for the function of the deputy is to post sanctions and could respond to notifications as well. So it is not just Mr. Hsiung but the whole administraion that my notifications are sent to. This brings up as to why the deputy has not posted to my notifications or emailed me as to why so that there would not be a reminder posted here by me.
You see, there is much more to this. For if statements are allowed to be considered to be supportive, by any number of readers, that could arouse antisemitic feelings, then there is the potential IMHHO for some in the commiunity to think that what the statements in question purport are {state-sponsored}. This then, IMHO could cause some members to think that they are superior to Jews and then use a Jew as a target to degrade or debase or defame and if they are in a drug-induced state to want to kill themselves and/or others, they could target a Jew for murder. The historical record shows this and I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post links about how that happened from 1933-1945 and beyond. But it did happem and could happen again. If I am the only member here to attempt to stop statments from remaining unsanctioned here that could arosue antisemitic feelings , what does that say about the members of the community? Could some readers think that the members (redacted by respondent) to have those statements remain unsanctioned by the administration?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1006147
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1006621.html