Posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 9:06:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-histfav, posted by Lou PIlder on February 11, 2007, at 7:52:17
> > > Thank you Lou for understanding my question as it was written to DR BOB..I was very specific in what I was asking and the topic has taken a twist that has nothing to very little to do with what I asked Dr Bob. While I appreciate the replies and time members have taken to reply...this was intended for Dr Bob ...and as you stated the differentiating aspect in applying {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the **same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down**
> > >
> > > It would to my understanding, it's against the rules to list specific examples so I will not do that...however in general not too long ago I saw...2 posters BOTH told their posts could lead others to feel put down....one was asked to rephrase 2 times both times it was stated that poster's posts could still lead one to feel accused or put down...the other poster was blocked....Dr Bob, I wish to understand the differentiating aspect in these cases Please see the FIRST post to YOU in this thread.
> > >
> > > Thanks ahead
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Announcing a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adjudications like those we're discussing here can't be closely argued (ie an interlocking and rationalized set of mutually consistent and coherent rules) ad hoc.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the absence of elaborated judicial (ie interpretive) institutions-- obviously not possible-- there's only the good faith and attempt to be fair of the admins-- either perceived or not perceived, argued convincingly for, or not-- in any *particular* case.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wish I could explain this idea: that interpretation (ie how to make distinctions in meaning-- civility, or any other interpretive yardstick) are too complex, too multiply understood to yield to simple explanations of any single kind.
> > > > >
> > > > > No one is going to be happy with this, I realize.
> > > > >
> > > > > Honore
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > It is written here,[...a principle like "a small part of an otherwise civil post" or "rephraseable" opens up a Pandora's box...].[...adjudications {like those we are discussing} here >can't be< closely argued..ad hoc..]
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > What we are discussing has been innitiated by F4MT as to the use of either {please rephrase} or {please be civil} to statements that {could lead one to feel put down}. The poster asks Dr Hsiung what could be the differentiating aspect to use one verses the other, and brings up discrimination, favoritism and {two standards}.
> > > > It is when the statement in question has no doubt IMO that it could lead one to feel put down that I think that the innitiator of this thread is concerned about. If there is a doubt as to if the statement could or could not lead one to feel put down, then I think that those type of posts could be better discussed in a separate thread for I think that this thread is about {two standards} being applied to members for {the same} uncivil concept being posted here.
> > > > So that being what I think is the discussion here in this thread, I feel that a discussion >could< be held here about the innitiator's request to Dr. Hsiung as to what his differentiating aspect is to apply {please rephrase} as to {please be civil} to posts of the same nature such as those that could lead one to feel put down.
> > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > F4MT,
> > You wrote,[...Thank you Lou for understanding...]
> > >>Lou's seventeenth smiley>[:-)
> > Lou
> > >
> >
> > Friends,
> This thread was innitiated in regards to a member wanting to know from DR. Hsiung his differentiating aspect that there is for him to use {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil} in posts that have statements that could lead another to feel put down. The concern of the member is as to favoritism or two standards or discrimination.
> I do not know all about the posts in question that are in question, for those posts are not given in this thread for me to see the entire matter involved in the concern of innitiator of this thread. I think that if we examine the historical use of how favoritism has been used, then I think that there could be a better understanding as to what the innitiator of this thread is concerned about, for {favoritism} could have more than one interpretation and use. One form of historical favoritism is when a particular person or group of people are allowed to go unsanctioned for ,let's say, breaking a law that what another person or group would be arrested and chrged with. This form of favoritism, which could be deemed to be discrimination or the concept of two standards, then, concerns an irrational favor allowing the person or group to go without being charged with a crime when others in that city or country etc are charged with a crime for doing the same.
> Another form of historical favoritism is concerning when a particular crime is commited, the crime itself is allowed to be commited by any person. In this situation, the crime committed is ignored and is what allowed to be committed regarless as to if the poster a member of a favored group or not.
> This could happen, and has happened historically, when a preconceived judgment or bias or prejudice against an individual or group is wanting to be esatblished by the >state<. In this situation, the {state} wants to build a {structure} and encourages and fosters an irrational hostility directed against an individual or group . And one way this hostility has been fostered historically has been to allow and promote a preconceived judgment or prjudice to be fostered, in a city or country etc (the state), by not sanctioning the ones that are helping the {state} to promote the hostility directed against a race or individulal.
> In a sense, in that case, the favoritism or discrimination by the nature of two standards, becomes >state-sponsored< and the irratinal hostility toward the group or one member of the group is fostered to the point that it becomes fashionable to help the state build the structure.Once the structure is established, then the dismantleing could be a very difficult task to achieve.
> Lou
>
Friends,
Many of you may know that I have been a long-time advocate here in my efforts to promote equality and justice. Many of you may not know that it is my intent to offer support and education here {from my perspective}. I have wanted to post here what I believe has the potential to {bridge the differences} that separate people of various conflicting perspectives. This bridge is one that I have been trying to construct. It is a bridge that I think could lead to a place that could be where one could {overcome} the place that the bridge allowed them to passover from.
There is a Gate that is on the entrance to the bridge that I am talking about. The opening of that Gate IMO is jepardized when things stand in the way to the Gate. Fallen4MyT has innitiated this thread and I believe that there is great merit in his/her concern here about there possibly being two standards or favoristism or discrimination in relation to the administrative use of {please rephrase} and {please be civil}. I believe that a community depends heavily on whether if there is favoritism, if it is allowed to be fostered or not.
You see, when favoritism, or discrimination or two standards, becomes commonplace in a community, it IMO has the potential to send a chilling message that what is being favored,is OK. This is one reason that I appreciate this thread being innitiated here for there is concern by the innitiator that there could be favoritism being allowed and it is being brought to attention so that if there is favoritism, that the structure of favoristim could be examined and allow members to make their own determination as to if there is or is not favoritism and if they then would want to contribute or not, if there is favoritism, to it being more strongly built upon or not. The innitiator would like for Dr. Hsiung to post his differntiating aspect that he uses to post to a member to {please rephrase} rather than {please be civil}. This is IMO very important for one receives a sanction and the other could not receive a sanction if they restate what is in question, I guess, to elimiate what could be uncivil in the writing of a new statement to replace the statement in question, although there may be a different interpretation of this concept and that is why I think that the innitiator of this thread has brought this up here.
I will continue to oppose any aspect of two standards or favoritism or discrimination because I think that it is self-destructive and could lead those that are discriminated upon by the nature of two standards to feel put down. But for there to be justice and equality IMO for me, I would like justice and equality for all.
I do not think that discrimination could be justified in a mental-health community any more than I could think that favoritism could be justified in any community. And I believe that because this is a mental-health community, that favoritism IMO is like a match that could have the potential to start a fire. And could not one match start a forest fire? It is my deep conviction that a match is a match regardless of how it is lighted. For the flames that are to be estinguished are flames regardless as to their origin and could IMO have the potential, unless they are estinguished, to keep on burning.
Lou
>
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:730896
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/731763.html