Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 10:09:08
In reply to Lou's respons to Dr. Hsiung's decision 388469LS » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2004, at 16:45:58
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you consider to examine the poem and its responses an relation to your rule that states not to post things that could, [... put down those of other faiths...].
I feel that the line in the poem has the potential to {put down} those that have the god of the old testament, which includes the jews and others.
The poster has written that he/she interprets the line in the poem that uses,[...realize that the divine is not quite what you think it might be... cantankerous bearded patrarchal figure...might be a bit antiquated...] to mean that the author:[...wants to have the god of the old testament reevaluated as perhaps {not-so-divine...] and that he/she thought that it is ,[...pretty straightforward...].
I am asking you to consider posting a statement, either in the poem or in the response as to what the poster interptreted the poen to mean, to indicate that either one or the other , or both, [...puts down those of other faiths...].
I am not asking that the poster be sanctioned.
I feel that the statement by the poster has the potential to be considered as to violate your rule to not post things that [..put down those of other faiths...] because the poster sees in his/her interpretation that ,[...the old testament god perhaps needs to be reevaluated as {not-so-divine}...]. Now if the poster writes that they see it, then there is a person that writes that it can be seen and others could see it also. What can be seen is the part,according to the poster, that that god is: ,[...not so divine...]. Are you saying that that part does not put down those of the faith that have that god ?
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:389694
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/390254.html