Posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 7:52:17
In reply to Lou's reply to F4MT-htrdquen » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou PIlder on February 9, 2007, at 16:47:46
> > 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
> > >
> > F4MT,
> You wrote,[...Thank you Lou for understanding...]
> >>Lou's seventeenth smiley>[:-)
> Lou
> >
>
> Friends,
This thread was innitiated in regards to a member wanting to know from DR. Hsiung his differentiating aspect that there is for him to use {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil} in posts that have statements that could lead another to feel put down. The concern of the member is as to favoritism or two standards or discrimination.
I do not know all about the posts in question that are in question, for those posts are not given in this thread for me to see the entire matter involved in the concern of innitiator of this thread. I think that if we examine the historical use of how favoritism has been used, then I think that there could be a better understanding as to what the innitiator of this thread is concerned about, for {favoritism} could have more than one interpretation and use. One form of historical favoritism is when a particular person or group of people are allowed to go unsanctioned for ,let's say, breaking a law that what another person or group would be arrested and chrged with. This form of favoritism, which could be deemed to be discrimination or the concept of two standards, then, concerns an irrational favor allowing the person or group to go without being charged with a crime when others in that city or country etc are charged with a crime for doing the same.
Another form of historical favoritism is concerning when a particular crime is commited, the crime itself is allowed to be commited by any person. In this situation, the crime committed is ignored and is what allowed to be committed regarless as to if the poster a member of a favored group or not.
This could happen, and has happened historically, when a preconceived judgment or bias or prejudice against an individual or group is wanting to be esatblished by the >state<. In this situation, the {state} wants to build a {structure} and encourages and fosters an irrational hostility directed against an individual or group . And one way this hostility has been fostered historically has been to allow and promote a preconceived judgment or prjudice to be fostered, in a city or country etc (the state), by not sanctioning the ones that are helping the {state} to promote the hostility directed against a race or individulal.
In a sense, in that case, the favoritism or discrimination by the nature of two standards, becomes >state-sponsored< and the irratinal hostility toward the group or one member of the group is fostered to the point that it becomes fashionable to help the state build the structure.Once the structure is established, then the dismantleing could be a very difficult task to achieve.
Lou
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:730896
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/731759.html