Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 9, 2007, at 14:29:52
In reply to Lou's response to aspects ofHonore's post-cantbe?, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 7:47:22
Thank you Lou for understanding my question as it was written to DR BOB..I was very specific in what I was asking and the topic has taken a twist that has nothing to very little to do with what I asked Dr Bob. While I appreciate the replies and time members have taken to reply...this was intended for Dr Bob ...and as you stated the differentiating aspect in applying {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the **same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down**
It would to my understanding, it's against the rules to list specific examples so I will not do that...however in general not too long ago I saw...2 posters BOTH told their posts could lead others to feel put down....one was asked to rephrase 2 times both times it was stated that poster's posts could still lead one to feel accused or put down...the other poster was blocked....Dr Bob, I wish to understand the differentiating aspect in these cases Please see the FIRST post to YOU in this thread.
Thanks ahead
> > Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
> >
> > Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
> >
> > In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
> >
> > I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
> >
> > No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
> >
> > Honore
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box...].[...adjudications {like those we are discussing} here >can't be< closely argued..ad hoc..]
>
> Friends,
> What we are discussing has been innitiated by F4MT as to the use of either {please rephrase} or {please be civil} to statements that {could lead one to feel put down}. The poster asks Dr Hsiung what could be the differentiating aspect to use one verses the other, and brings up discrimination, favoritism and {two standards}.
> It is when the statement in question has no doubt IMO that it could lead one to feel put down that I think that the innitiator of this thread is concerned about. If there is a doubt as to if the statement could or could not lead one to feel put down, then I think that those type of posts could be better discussed in a separate thread for I think that this thread is about {two standards} being applied to members for {the same} uncivil concept being posted here.
> So that being what I think is the discussion here in this thread, I feel that a discussion >could< be held here about the innitiator's request to Dr. Hsiung as to what his differentiating aspect is to apply {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down.
> Lou
>
poster:Fallen4MyT
thread:730896
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/731426.html