Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 11:37:09
In reply to Re: Lou's (note) reply to Dena's post-6K-b, posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 21:39:57
You wrote,[...don't believe it is possible to communicate with you ...require a detailed explanation...made a mountain out of a molehill...].
Well, when I read things that could have different inferrences by different people, I am moved to inquire about which inferrance is the one that the poster would want to be seen. That way, I can have a better understanding of what the poster wants others to see in their post(s).
As far as me [...making a mountian out of a molehill...], some people might give more, or less, importance to someone's post, but I happen to consider the entire thread involving myself, Jon and you to be of great importance here, for it could establish a precedent in relation to the following:
A). Would it be permissible here to write that other's beliefes, such as the belife in the doctrine of purgatory, is an [...incorrect doctrine...myth...etc....]?
B). Would it be permissible here to claim that whatever anyone wrote, even if it is breach of the rules, could be sheltered by the poster claimimg that its intent was to be humorous?
C). Would it be permissible here to write what could be determined as a breach of the rules here to be shelterd from any discipline by claiming that the post was protected because it was a conversation between another poster?
D). Others not mentioned.