Posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 8:51:08
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-July 11-prcdnc/suprtv, posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2007, at 8:40:31
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post,
> [...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down, including anti-Semitic statements. Still, I think that it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't feel supported by particular posts...].
> My concerns here are related to your post on 7/22/02, which reads,
> [...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported?.{But being supportive takes precedence}. My approach to civility is, {it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it's true-- is uncivil thay shouldn't post it.)...](Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
> I am trying to determine if there are two standards here or not. For the statement in question was not approved untill the poster was given the opportunity to modify it and prefaced it with {I believe} which you then posted that [...you think that is good...].
> The one standard as you have posted is that being supportive takes precedence and another standard that you have posted is that you think that it doesn't matter if someone really believes something, if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it.
> I am trying to determine by a reply from you to me about this as to if there is one standard for the post in question and another standard for other posts of the same nature. If you could clairify as to how the statement in question [...is good...] while you have the standards for posts of that nature that it doesn't matter if one really belives something, that if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it. The post in question was not approved untill the poster modified it with the preface {I believe}, but you write that that does not matter.
> Since it was then approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard then that approves it keeping in mind what you have posted concerning if one belives it and that being supportive tskes precedence?
> Here is a link to the post where I had brought this up on July 11.
> Lou PIlder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.htmlDr. Hsiung,
You have posted some things that I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean concerning your post that says something like, {it is inevitiable that some members will not feel supported by some posts...].
I agree with you that there could be some posts that members will not feel supprted by that could be posted the first day the forum opened.
But I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by your posting that in reference to my concerns regarding this discussion. Could you offer more clarification as to how your statement is related or not related to my concerns about if there are or ar not two standards here?
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:768966
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/772511.html