Posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 11:20:59
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsuing-morat, posted by Lou Pilder on February 3, 2008, at 10:05:47
> > > > 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 PilderMr. Hsiung,
Is it no great honor for me to post here to come to the aid of another member of this community. But I feel IMO that it is not only my duty out of fairness, but also my moral obligation.
You posted here that you are appying to the rule of {overgeneralizing} the phrase that Phillipa used here. Yet today, the dictionary, as the standard here, writes that overgenerizing is when something is written that implies a degree or amount too great to be thought as to be reasonable. Your past practice shows that the phrase was not deemed to be showing an amount or degree that was too great to be reasonable, nor can I find anywhere where another authority says that it does. If you know of one, could you post it here and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly?
This brings up what my thinking is. I think that the phrase is not one be to deemed to be overgeneralizing. And I base that on the standards here used, including but not limited to, the Webster standard of dictionary definition.
I would like others here to know what ex post facto is.(citation D1). Ex post facto is Latin for {from a thing done afterward}. It it used in when rules are made for a community to allow member to have advanced knowlege of what a rule entails. Fairness could mean that rules for a community be well-defined and applied equally and that the rules be given in advance as to {how they will be applied}, because fairness and giving {advance knowlege of what the rules are} could be connected. It is my great conviction that in a mental-health community the use of {ex post facto} can cause damage and is not IMO good for the community as a whole. Without advance knowlege, then members could be accused of breaking a rule retroactivly to actions that others have already performed without those members being accused of breaking a rule.
In the case at hand, what Phillipa wrote could be so that it would be fine IMO for Mr. Hsiung to make a new rule to apply to that phrase. If not, then could all the members here over the years that had used that phrase think that they did something wrong and broke a rule of Robert Hsiung's? Could they then feel guilt and/or shame that they broke his rule?
Lou Pilder
citation D1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:810306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/810477.html