Posted by Lou Pilder on February 25, 2007, at 9:56:14
In reply to Re: I wish we had consistent enforcing of the rule, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 24, 2007, at 17:46:29
> Hello
>
> I just feel slightly put out that someone did exactly the same thing I did and didn't get any 'punishment' whilst I did. Which I think is a relatively normal reaction.
>
> I would have used the notify button thing, but I don't care about the post per se - I think it should be left alone. I have used that button in the past when someone posted something quite offensive about another poster and I didn't want anyone to get hurt, but with this, well its different, the posts aren't offensive and they can stay as they are, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I'm not overly fussed about the whole thing, but I just wanted to make my point I guess. I dunno really why I did what I did - I suppose I always thought of babble as being extremely fair, and this disappointed me abit. Well anyway. Lets move on shall we? We probably aren't being very constructive.Friends,
It is written here,[...I feel..put out...wanted to make a point...this disappointed me...We {probably} aren't being..constructive...].
The grammatical structure in the use of the word {probably] could mean [..{most likely} or {presumably} or something else...] The generally accepted meaning of the use of the word {probably} is that there could be a question as to if what the word is conected to is {absolute} or not absolute. Such as in a statement like,[...it will >probably< snow today...]. It may snow or it may not snow?
So being as it may be here in relation to if it is or is not {constructive} to continue to have this discussion rather than to end the discussion if the phrase to {move on}is meant to end the discussion, I think that there is the potential for there to be constructivness to continue the discussion here.
I base this on many aspects in this discussion that I consider to be {important} in a mental health community. One being as to if there are two standards here, and if so, could there be a {substantial risk} to the mental health of some of the members here, if there are two standards, which IMO could have the potential to be considered as to if it constitutes discrimination by some, if there are two standards and the two standards are continued.
Another is that if there are two standards here, could it be considered to be {reasonable} for the two standards to continue? There have been volumes written as to how a determination could be made as to if something is {reasonable} or not reasonable.
One determination could be made as to if what is under consideration could be {tested} as to if it is {fair} or not. But there are others tests for reasonableness.
Another test that could IMO be used as appropriate here in a mental health community is if there are two standards here, could the continuance of the two standards [...create a >substantial risk<...]to harming a participant's mental health here?
I believe that there is the potential for one to feel inferior if they have an additional condition than others to participate equally here or if they are treated unequally, which could be what the definition of {two satandards} means. I believe that a continuation of this discussion could be more helpfull to the community.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:735638
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/735985.html