Posted by Tamar on July 10, 2005, at 16:37:27
In reply to Lou's reply to Tamara- » Tamar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 10, 2005, at 16:02:36
Hi Lou
> You wrote,[...Dr bob... advising...not to read your posts?...].
> Let us look at the innitial post by Dr. Hsiung.
> [...its more "conducive to civic harmony and welfare...{not to read in the first place}...]. This was later revised ,[...another alternative is to ...].
> In your opinion, do you think that the latter changes the former? If so, what is changed?Actually, I read the former post the same way I read the latter. I understood why Dr Bob clarified his meaning in the second post, but I read his first post the same way. In other words, I assumed when I read his first post that he was suggesting not reading posts if reading might lead to an uncivil response.
I can understand that confusion can sometimes arise when people read something written when there is no visual context to help. But in this instance it never occurred to me for a moment that Dr Bob might be suggesting that people stop reading your posts (or anyone else’s) for no reason. I made the assumption when I read his first post that he meant it was better not to read IF reading was going to result in an uncivil reply.
The bottom line is that I just don’t believe Dr Bob wants people to stop reading your posts. What I believe he wants is that people post only civil replies. And I think other people here would agree with that.
Best wishes,
TamarP.S. Just one little thing… Confusingly enough, there’s another person here called TamaraJ and she’s sometimes known as Tamara, where I’m just Tamar. I thought I should mention it in case she thinks your posts are directed to her. I hope that’s OK.
poster:Tamar
thread:525619
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/525856.html