Posted by Lou Pilder on March 17, 2007, at 6:26:32
In reply to hey lou.., posted by karen_kay on March 16, 2007, at 11:07:20
> hey lou,
> i likie you
> go and scr$w
> that 3 post rule!
>
> keep goin buddy!
>
> fondest,
> kkkk,
In regards to your statement for me to continue here, I would like to post more because there is a lot more to this than what is in this thread so far. The policy for the administration board is that it is fine to discuss the actions taken by the administration and to discuss the policy and if one would want to know Dr. Hsiung's rationale, to just ask him.
My overiding concern is about the {action} that Dr. Hsiung and his deputy have posted here and that the {policy} that could have the potential to be established as I am unsure of the {rationale} that Dr. Hsiung applies to his action in relation to what he has posted that IMO could have the potential to have some think that he is approving the use of the preface {I believe} to a statement that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings to make the statement acceptable when the member was asked to rephrase the statement. It is my great fear that others then could think IMO that they could have the approval to post here, let's say, statements from Hitler's [...Kampf...] and preface it with {I believe}. If that could be acceptable here, then there could be the potential IMO for this community to have a different definition of {support and education} that I have to me as a Jew here. For I can not post here that my God has revealed to me a commandment to me that I believe is to me. This IMO could then have the potential to establish two standards here.
The statement in question is one of historical importance in relation to its use for centuries in state-sponsored antisemitism. The conjunction in the statement has the potential IMO to convey a {contrast} to the two statements joined by the conjunction,{but}. There is then the potential IMO for there to be the interpretaion by some others to mean that a {difference} could be implied because of the use of {came by} in the second part of the statement in question. There is the potential IMO for some others to then think that there could be the implication of the first then being obsolete, which IMO has the potential to put down Jews since the law of Moses is the foundation of the Jewish faith.
There are historical parallels in the use of the statement in question that one can email me if they like.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:741543
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/741739.html