Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2011, at 21:30:01
In reply to Lou's reply-huzphulinhu, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2011, at 20:56:33
> > > > Sorry. I forgot to post the link.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > > As can be seen, the statement by Mr. Hsiung at the end of what is in the link states that the purpose of the forum is for support and if something is not supportive they can take it elseware, (not here). And also the fact that it is in the bible does not make it supportive.
> > > That is the crux of this matter in question. I am requesting for Mr. Hsiung to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question that purports that there is a set of people that have eternal life and forgivness by the {only way}. That way is described as (redacted by respondent)Jesus. That precludes all others since the poster uses the word,{only}.
> > > It has been well-established in the rules here that statements that could lead people to think that there is what is referred to as {the only way}, to not be supportive. This is why I am asking members here to ppst from their perspective in the thread in question.
> > > Here is a post that exemplifies this rule here.
> > > Lou
> > > To see this post:
> > > A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page here
> > > B. Type in:
> > > [admin, 6531]
> >
> > Scott,
> > The crux of this matter is as to if Mr. Hsiung considers the statement in question supportive or not. And if he considers it to be not supportive, then what is his rationale for allowing the statement to be {OK}? And thn what does {OK} mean here?
> > You see, it has been well-established that Jews and others that do not acceopt the claim in queastion are not in the set of people that the statement in question identifiies.
> > Then my concern is also as to why are not the members here, in mass, protesting the allowing of the statement in question by Mr. Hsiung by posting in the thread in question.
> > Here is another link that brings out the crux of this situation. And is it in question to some here as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
> > Lou
> > To see this post:
> > A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page
> > B. Type in:
> > [faith, 453471]
>
> Scott,
> Here is a post that uses derogatory and dehumanizing imagery toward the Jews that I pointed out to Mr. Hsiung.
> Now Mr. Hsiung asked the poster to rephrase or revise the post. But the statements came from a link to a site so how could anyone rephrase or revise what is in someone else's statement? I guess one could revise by deleting the link but is that offerd to others here to delete what they posted in a link? But how could a poster delete their own post here? There is much more to this...
> You see, there was another post by Mr. Hsiung before that post to not post a link to a site that has antisemitic content.
> Lou
> To see this post:
> A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page
> B. Type in:
> [Dec 13 2004, admin, 428781]Scott,
I would like to focus on the post in the above that you get when you type in [Dec 13 2004, admin, 428781].
There are other posts in the first group that could also come into this discussion, but I would like to focus on the one by itself now.
You see, there was discussion as to what happened to the post by th eposter, for if you click on the link by that poster, the link now is not there. There were other happenings with that link before wht you could see now is seen. The question that I have is who did whatever to the the link. A tech expert told me that there are two or more possibilities. To see what I found out, I could email that to you at your request.
But my concern is as to if the membership here could post in the thread in question where I request for Mr. Hsiung to post as to if he considers the statement in question supportive or not that precludes Jews and others that do not (redacted by respondent)have forgivness and eternal life. And is there a connection to these two post that you see that could be considerd {analogous}?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1000678
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1002496.html