Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 14:43:13 [reposted on February 26, 2007, at 17:44:10 | original URL]
In reply to Lou's request to AM for clarification-cnfusn » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2007, at 14:29:49
> > Long time, rayww.
> >
> > No, actually I think this is a wonderful place to duscuss confusion about feelings.
> >
> > It only crosses the line (my opinion) when a person sounds sure that he is right and others are wrong.
> >
> > It's a tough balance, and hard to remember when emotions are involved.
>
> AM,
> In your discussion here with the other member, are your comments above being those of a member or a deputy?
> If they are as a deputy, I am unsure if your comments are concerning the post that you asked for to be rephrased or not. If it is, I am unsure if you mean that a post that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, or the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, could be {crossing the line} only when you determine that the author of the post {sounds sure} that they are right and the other is wrong.
> In my understanding of the rules here, a statement here that has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings {crosses the line}whether or not the author {sounds sure} that they are right and others are wrong.
> I am unsure from what you wrote if from now on when you examine a post, that posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings will be allowed to stand if you make a determination that the author's {sounding of surity} is the question to you or if the statement itself has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or have the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down.
> I am also unsure as to what was in regards in that post in question that constituted {confusion of feelings}. If it was about the statement in question that IMO has the potentia to arrouse antisemitic feelings and the potential to lead a Jew to feel put down, then what was the confusion about feelings in that post, if it was in regards to that post. If it was not in regards to that post, then could you idenetify what post it was in regards to? Sorry but could you clear up the confusion that I have here?
> Lou
>
> Am,
I have reviewed your post and it is as a deputy, not a member. It is your opinion, but it is about an opinion of administrative decisions , not a member's comments, for you state that you are useing a {balance}. The balance means that there is a decision to be made which is administrative, for a member does not make that decision to sanction, but an administrator does.
You asked the author of the post in question to rephrase as a condition to continue posting, which is as an administrator, not a member.
Sorry about that I originally had a doubt about if you were posting as a member or a deputy, for now I see that your post was about your opinion concerning a decision to sanction (crossing the line).
Lou
>
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:735406
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/736527.html