Posted by Lou Pilder on July 6, 2015, at 6:21:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-, posted by alexandra_k on July 5, 2015, at 23:04:37
> I meant something like 'I don't know that I agree with you'. I don't see the anti-semitic things on the boards that you seem to. And even if I did I wouldn't think that Bob leaving them on the boards meant that he agreed with them.
>
> But I think it is nice that you give him something to do :-) Some reason to come back.Alexandra,
You wrote,[...I don't see the anti-Semitic things on the boards that you see...].
They are plainly visible. Anything that is {against the Jew} is what is considered by definition to be anti-Semitic, in particular but not limited to policies here that are against the Jew which are anti-Semitic policies carried out by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record and those members in concert with them.
One such policy is that Mr. Hsiung states that he will not act on notifications from me, but will act on those from other members. The policy allows Mr. Hsiung to have statements that put down Jews to remain to be seen unsanctioned. The policy denies me equal protection of his rules which is known as discrimination just as if a city denied a Jew equal protection of its laws to a Jewish person that called the police because someone was throwing stones at their house.
Mr. Hsiung admits that harm could come to me by allowing anti-Semitic statements to be seen as supportive by him here. That could show his intent to inflict emotional distress upon me by allowing others here to post anti-Semitic propaganda with impunity while I am under many prohibitions by him that prevent me from posting my own repudiation to the anti-Semitic propaganda allowed to be seen as supportive by him.
In that he allows{ No non-Christian will..}, which is analogous to {No Jew will or No Islamic person will or only Christians will}, insults all religions that have in their faith that they {can} enter heaven without being a Christian. The insult to Judaism in the statement being allowed to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, is anti-Semitic on its face because it puts down the faith of Jews which is against his own rules here to post. He does say that he could post that the statement is against his rules where the post is originally posted, but refuses to do so which allows the statement to have the potential to arouse anti-Semitic feelings as readers could think that the psychiatrist is validating the hatred toward the Jews that historically has been used by the statement. His self-made justification for allowing it to stand un repudiated is that he does not have to post a repudiation to the statement because he posted a repudiation to a not-so-known vulgar word in the post. He says that there is an invisible sanction to the statement as what he calls an indirect sanction, if there is any such thing. The rule here is that readers can know it if it is seen, and there is not sanction to the statement that can be seen and even so, he refuses to post a disclaimer to the statement where it is originally posted that he does not consider the statement to be supportive. His other self-made justification for allowing the statement to be seen unsanctioned is that if he did sanction it, the poster could feel too bad. But he admits that he could post a repudiation to it without the poster feeling too bad but refuses to do so. This allows a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are ratifying the hatred toward the Jews and others that could be depicted in the statement as being inferior to Christians as Christians can enter heaven but no non-Christian can enter heaven according to the statement. That puts down Jews which is an anti-Semitic statement being allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
If my notifications were acted on, then I could expose the hatred toward the Jews that is being allowed to be promulgated here as being seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record. The policy of him allowing himself to not act on my notification allows the anti-Semitic propaganda to flourish from here. If a town refused to act on a Jewish person's call to stop people from throwing stones at their house, the town would be considered to be an anti-Semitic town by denying the Jew equal protection of its laws. Here, not only has Mr. Hsiung stated that he can not act on my notifications, he goes on to say that it will be *good* in his vision of his future community to not act on them for the whole of his community and himself. That poison of hate to have a policy that denies a Jew equal protection of the laws is an anti-Semitic policy on its face as history records what the *good* was in countries that denied Jews the equal protection of its laws. You say that you don't see the anti-Semitism as I see it here. Maybe you think also that it is supportive to allow to be seen where the statement is originally posted as supportive here, [No non-Christian will...]?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1080190
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1080252.html