Posted by Lou Pilder on January 17, 2008, at 9:44:38
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-letstnd » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2008, at 11:21:00
> By the administration, yes. Not by you.
>
> I've gone as far as I can in this discussion, Lou. The rules are as I stated. Please don't negatively characterize the posts of others, whether or not you name them specifically. Saying that they have the potential to cause harm or arouse antisemitic feeling is negatively characterizing them. Please do not do this on the board.
>
> If you have any further questions, it might be best to address them to Dr. Bob. I don't know how to help you further.Mr. Hsiung,
Dinah wrote,[...the rules are...don't negatively characterize the posts of others...saying that they have the potential to...is negatively characterizing them...questions might be best to address them to Dr. Bob...].
In response to that it is fine to discuss actions taken by the administration, and ask for rationales and such and to discuss the rules here, I have the following concerns that I would like for you to address per the statement by Dinah that she thinks that it might be best.
A1. What rule here is involved? There is a rule to not post member's posts that have been notated as uncivil, but the posts in question have been allowed to stand.There is a rule to not post a member's post for a determination, but the posts in question have already been determined to be allowed to stand.
A2. What criteria are used here to conclude that a post could negatively characterize a post as what Dinah has written? If it negatively characterizes the {post}, how in your thinking could that have anything to do with the member that posted it? If you have a rationale for that, could you post it here (with a citation from a notable psychiatrist/psychologist? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly..A3. Dinah later wrote that [...the administration, yes. Not by you...] Is there not the interpretation that some could think that she is saying that the administartion considers the posts in question to be acceptable and civil and that I do not? If so, could not the fact that I do not , but the administration does, mean that I could post any post here that has been allowed to stand because the adminstration considers them to be civil? If you could post a reply to me here, then I could have the opportunity to respond ccordingly.
B. In you thinking, why could any others here feel accused? A generally accepted meaning of {to feel accused} means to {be blamed} or to have done something wrong. But if the post in question that one wants to post is said before it is posted that {it has been allowed to let stand here}, then is that not having the potential for others to think that the post is acceptable, and thearfore civil, and could not members post URLs of posts that have been let stand as civil and not done something wrong here? Have the members that posted what you have let stand done something wrong? If so, what have they done wrong to be accused of?
C. Would you be willing to have a discussion here, at a set time, so that all could discuss this, knowing in advance the time that the discussion will be held? We could also invite outside experts in the fields involved here with proper notice.
D. Could you set up an email address, (perhaps Dinah's, or a volunteer) that I could send the posts in question to so that others could email that address and not me? These are (posts here that have been allowed to stand} that could be part of the discussion that could take place here? If you could, then others could have IMO a better understanding of the issue involved an be better able to participate in any discussion concerning this.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:802861
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/807202.html