Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2006, at 9:06:19
In reply to Lou's request for clarification from Dr. Hsiung-gs » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2006, at 7:50:19
> > DR. Hsiung,
> > I am requesting that you clarify what you mean in your reply to me;
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/715974.html
> > [...Sorry, but I don't think I have anything else to add at this time...] to my request for clarification in the post;
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/713673.html
> > In post 713673, I had requested that you clarify your statement to me;[...the question for me hasn't been whether they're discriminatory, but whether it's {more helpful} to focus on the past or on the present...].
> > Your statement arrises out of my concern that there are posts here that one can read presently that have statements IMO that have been used for centuries by those that want to arrouse antisemitic feelings in a community as in historical state-sponsored antisemitism.
> > It is my deep conviction that it could be good for the community as a whole for the administration here to take affirmative action now and notate those statements as being uncivil here to show that the forum repudiates all forms of antisemitism. For if one match can start a forest fire, could not one statement that has the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings, that is left unsanctioned here, have the potential for some others to think that the match has kindled a fire and that the fire is still burning?
> > Using this as an introduction to this, it is your reply to me that I am asking clarification for so that I could have a better understanding of what you mean by it. At this time, I am unsure as to what you mean by the nature of the grammatical structure of your reply to me.
> > The next post by me will address my concerns for you to clarify as to the grammatical structure and what you mean in your reply;
> > [...Sorry, but I don't think I have anything else to add at this time...]
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> Now let us look at the grammatical structure of your statement;
> [..Sorry, But I don't think I have anything else to addd at this time...].
> The grammatical structure of your reply could have more than one interpretation depending on what you mean by parts of your statement.
> In,{Sorry}, this word has many connotations that can be made certain if you could clarify which connotation you intend for the word to mean. I am unsure as to which one you are intending here.
> One connotation of {sorry} is that of (regret). If your intentions are to use the word {sorry} as a regret, then could you clarify why you regret and then why you could not reply to my requets for clarification so that in that case there could be no regret since my requests would then be accommodated?
> Another connotation to {sorry}, could be {pity}. If your intention is to pity me, could you clarify if the {pity} is because you think that I have a {rightfull} request and you will not clarify my request as to , let's say, how it could be >more helpful< to the Jewish community to leave the statements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings unnotated as being uncivil?
> Another connotation to {sorry}, could be >ridicule<. If this is your intent in your use of the word, could you take into consideration my feelings?
> Another connotation to {sorry}, is {scorn}. If this is your intention of the use of the word, could you take into consideration that there is the potential IMO to feel it that way?
> Another connotation to {sorry} could be {contemplating}. If that is your intention to use the word that way, then could you end your contemplation in a >reasonable< amount of time and address my requests for clarification?
> My next post will address some other aspects of the grammatical structure of your reply to me,[...Sorry, but I don't think..add at this time...]
> Lou Pilder
>DR. Hsiung,
Now let us look at that grammatical structure of your statement in relation to;[...but I don't think that I have anything else to add at this time...]
The phrase,{I don't think} could have different interprestations and I am unsure as to what you mean. One interpretation is that {I don't think} could involve your >state of mind< at the time that you were {thinking} in relation to your composing of your reply to me. I do not know what your state of mind was then, but then you wrote, >at this time< which IMO could mean that your state of mind then could change at any time.
Another interpretation could be that there is {indifference) in your thinking durring the time that you were composing your reply to me. If that was the case, the indifference could be deliberate or not deliberate. I do not know if you took a carfull and thorough thinking and considered what the consequences could be to me by replying without clarifying my request, let's say to one of them such as in #2,[...are you saying that some members here could be helped here by continuing to leave posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings unnotated as being uncivil? If so, how could they be helped by that?...].
Then you wrote,[..don't think that I have anything else {to add}...]
The grammatical structure in relation to your use of the word {add} could have different connotations.
One use of the word {add} is to >improve<. If this is youe intention of the use of the word, then are you saying that there is an absolute that there could never be improvement? If so, could you consider my feelings about that, for I think that a reply to clarify is an improvement?
Could you consider as to if my feelings are the same as another that askes for clarification, or what your rational is? I have asked for your rational as to how it could be {more helpfull} to the Jewish community to leave statements that have been used for centuries to arrouse antisemitic feelings unnoted here as being uncivil and I am unsure of what your rational is or could be? For if one match can start a forest fire, can not one statement that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings also be a match to start that fire? And have you not posted something that says that [..only you can prevent forest fires?...]
Then there is the phrase, {at this time}, which speaks for itself IMO. For the phrase could have been left out because is it not self-evident that one could make an addition at another time? So does the phrase mean that there is a {pause}? If so, could there not be a reasonable time for the pause and then the requests for clarifiction would be answered?
Then there is the potntial IMO for your entire reply to mean something else. If that is so, could you post here what that is?
Friends, if you would like to email as to what other reasons there could be, IMO, for the statement in question here by Dr. Hsiung to me could be, you could email me if you like.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:716428
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/716440.html