Posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 10:05:47
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsuing-gltshm? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 9:36:58
> > > Could you provide the link
> >
> > Sure:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071225/msgs/802558.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Is not it {factual} that the one type is more accurate than the other? (search key words Toph, blood pressure). If is is factual, then could you post here in regards to your TOS here that it is fine to discuss your rational by posting here what your rationale is for writing that Phillpa broke a rule of yours here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.Mr. Hsiung,
Your rationale that has been posted here is that you write that Phillpa's use of the figurative language {more often than not}
constitutes in your thinking to be overgeneralizing.
But in searching this forum back around 8 years I can find no sanction to a member's use of that same phrase and a search brings up around 400 posts that could be in relation to the phrase. I posted about 6 of them as representative samples in a previous discussion. Then the definition of {overgeneralize} in Webster's dictionary, that is the standard used here, is that:{overgeneralizaion} [...implies an amount or degree {too great} to be |reasonable|...].
I fail to see your rationale for ostracizing a member here for using a phrase that was used for years and that the dictionary standard used here says that overgeneralizing is {too great to be reasonable}. This is why I am asking you to re post more to your rationale, if there is more, for using {overgeneraliztion} here.
You write here that you use the standard of {reasonablenes} and your TOS say tha you try to be {fair}. {Fair} has a meaning to be impartial and {ex-post facto} is not fair by another definition. I would like for you to post {more of your rationale} here, if there is more, again taking in mind the aspects of the definition of {overgenerlizing}, {impartial} and {fair}.
If you could, then I could respond accordingly by seeing more of your rationale, if there more, after reading my concerns about your original rationale.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:810306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/810464.html