Posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2006, at 15:30:18
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Dinah's post, posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2006, at 15:06:59
Friends,
In considering the grammatical structure of Dr. Hsiung's statements concerning this ongoing discussion about my quest to have statements that IMO have the potential to foster antisemitic feelings be notated as being uncivil, he writes what IMO is that he says something like he wants to determine if it is {more helpful}to notate them or not. The grammatical structure IMO does not conclude that he will not place the notations, but that there is the potential for some to think that this ongoing discussion is {open} untill he makes a decision as to if it is more helpful or not to do so. I think that the grammatical structure could mean that he is open to a continued dialog concerning this.
Then there is the discussion about that DR. Hsiung has posted that [...one match >can< start a forest fire...]. I believe that this discussion is still ongoing and that DR. Hsiung could post the notations requested by me untill he writes something that I think is saying that he will never do that and I do not see any statement at this time that I think says that.
Then he does say that he will look at a post beforehand that I would like posted that is a response to the statements in question. This leads me to believe IMO that others can post to those posts in question and that there is no prohibition that a deputy can not, that I see.
A deputy could decline, or they could ask DR. Hsiung if they could if they are in doubt as to if they can post that the statement in question is uncivil. If DR. Hsiung posts that a deputy can not post to an uncivil post as being uncivil, that could be different, but I have not seen such a post.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:714548
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/714606.html