Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2014, at 10:12:31
In reply to Re: pardon but I must briefly interrupt » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on July 1, 2014, at 17:07:33
> >>>...the many posts I have made over the years that have fostered antisemetism
>
> Dinah, I trust you know what you are doing and why, but I hate that you chose to write this lie about yourself. I just cannot and will not let this statement exist here unrefuted. It's immoral for me to do so, maybe even unforgivable, by *my* standards in claiming to have any sort of positive relationship with you as a former deputy, fellow poster, battler of MH issues and friend.
>
> You have never, would never, and will never post anything here at PB or anywhere else that fosters antisemitism. Lou can have his views and opinions as he has and will - that does NOT make them correct, factual, or substantiated. They are OPINIONS. Those are supposed to be grounded in *something* to be worthy...others reading here can judge for themselves if they can locate the substance behind his many anxiety-accusations against former and current deputies and Dr. Bob. Ever try to capture the wind?
>
> Obviously, some subsets of someone can say that then my assertion what you wrote is false is also my "opinion," and so no more valid or accurate that Lou's. True, on its face. I will stand confidently on common sense and both our reputations here, letting the community decide if mine or Lou's view of your alleged antiemitism rings more true.
>
> The truth prevails and will - or maybe already has - set you free. I just want it on the record - by me at least -that the statement I snipped out above has no relationship to truth in this universe or any other.
>
> ((Dinah)) Sorry circumstances and changes to the nature of your home here changed so drastically it has come to this. Sorry for you, myself and all former deputies, and strangely even for Dr. Bob, too.Friends,
It is written here,[...You (Dinah) have never..post anything here...that fosters anti-Semitism...].
The position of deputy here by Dinah can have responsibilities in certain jurisdictions as this site can go all over the world. And different jurisdictions apply different standards to publishers of on-line hate and defamation.
When Dinah wrote that she has made many posts here over the years that have fostered anti-Semitism, we can understand what the word {foster} entails.
To foster something is to encourage something or promote or develop something or advance something or cultivate something. The "something" here is anti-Semitism.
And how is anti-Semitism fostered? I have stated here that I will not allow it here. To allow it to be fostered could mean that I would not object to it, but I do object to it. I know, and a subset of readers could also know, that the rules here state that statements that could lead another to feel that their faith is being put down, are not in accordance with the rules here and are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. And if they are allowed to be seen as that they are not sanctioned by a link to the statement where it is posted to be civil, readers could think that it is not against the rules here.
There are jurisdictions where if a repudiation to an insult to a religion is not posted by a web site blogger, like this site, then that jurisdiction considers that the people that had the function to post the repudiation and did not do so, are considered to be ratifying the insult to that faith and held responsible just as they posted it themselves. So in that type of situation, let's say if a deputy allowed and insult to a faith to stand, it is if they are validating the insult as posting it themselves. In some jurisdictions, the blogger could be sentenced to death.
In one case, a person committed suicide and there was a post encouraging them to do so and the web site moderator did not intervene with a repudiation. The blogger was held liable for the death because the blogger did not post a repudiation and readers could then think that the blogger was validating whatever caused the person to commit suicide as if the blogger posted whatever it was themselves.
In cases of defamation, the U.S. is split now on if Mr. Hsiung an his deputies are liable for 3erd party posts that defame if they do not post a repudiation. This will be heard in the next session of the U.S. Supreme court in a case parallel to what is going on here where the owner of the site encouraged and fostered defamation toward a person by allowing 3erd party posters to openly post defamatory comments about the person's character and thus encouraged the liable by inaction. The site owner was held liable in some jurisdictions and not in others on the basis of if the web site owner is immune or not from liability of what others post. But if the site owner fosters the defamation, they lose their immunity in some jurisdictions. This is going to be heard in the High Court and I am preparing a Amicus Curie brief to show how, if allowed, Jews could be the subject of hate and anti-Semitism could be fostered by a web site by the owner and his deputies leaving my notifications outstanding and allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen as supportive without the owner posting his tag-line to be civil as he does for non-anti-Semitic statements in the thread to the statement where it was originally posted and how defamation is allowed to be posted against me by the owner saying that he gives himself the option of acting on my requests in the notifications or not when his policy is to act on them except for mine, where acting is to either post in the thread or contact the requester by email or such. Then reminders can be posted and those can be ignored also. For that to be accomplished, one could speculate as to the role of the deputy since they could act if they wanted to even if Mr. Hsiung wants to ignore my requests in the notifications because the notifications go to all the deputies and the reply is said by Mr. Hsiung to come from all of "us", where the members of the "us" are the deputies and Mr. Hsiung.
As to Dinah's own posts directed at my character, a question is if those posts could be considered to be anti-Semitic and then foster anti-Semitism because they do not have the tag-line from Mr. Hsiung to be civil so that readers could think that what is directed at my character constitutes anti-Semitism being fostered since they could think that it is it against the rules.
Since I am trying to stop Mr. Hsiung from allowing antisemitic statements to remain to be seen as supportive by having him post some type of repudiation to them in the thread that they are initially posted, any attack upon my character here could be construed as an attempt to defame me in order to decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and to foster hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me, which could allow the anitismitism to flourish here by attempting to lead readers to believe falsely that I am a disturbed person and disregard what I am saying and lead a subset of reads to think that Jews can be degraded here and belittled and dehumanized.
I wll not allow it by objecting t it. There are a subset of jurists that think that if the moderator or the deputies do not show objection, that they can be considered to be validating the liable against me. That is what the U.S. Supreme court will here next term and I am confident that they will undoubtably render a decision that will convict all internet site owners and their deputies. If you want to be considered in my friend of the court brief that I am preparing, please contact me.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1067704
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1067773.html