Posted by Lou Pilder on March 19, 2007, at 14:44:10
In reply to Lou's reminder to DR. Hsiung (6), posted by Lou Pilder on March 19, 2007, at 6:57:17
> DR. Hsiung,
> In regards to your reminder procedure here, and in regards to one to ask you for your rationale, the following link at the end of this post is the innitial post by me to innitiate the discussion.
> I am also requesting that I be allowed hereto post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion? If your rule is applicable here, could you state your rationale for that here?
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/737156.html
>
Dr. Hsiung,
Your rule here is that one can not post what could have the potential to lead someone to feel put down even if they quote someone else or even if it is a belief or opinion of theirs.
I agree with you wholeheartedly in the principle that is behind your rule. For if someone is lead to feel put down I think that that could be contrapositive to the mission of the forum which is that people come here to receive/give support and education.
I think that by reading your TOS here that there could be an expectaion that one could have that that is the way that they will be treated here, as equal in regards to them receiving or giving support and education.
In discussiing your action here of posting what could have the potential IMO of being interpretted as an approval by you that one could preface a statement that has been determined by the deputy to be in need of being rephrased with {I believe}, it is my great concern that others could interpret your action to mean that similar statements of the nature of the one in question could also be approved as being prefaced with {I believe}. I am requesting that you post your rarionale here for that. If you could, thenI could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
My concern centers around your TOS that you have posted that if a member believes something, even if it in the bible,if it is uncivil, that it should not be posted here. And also, your post that you want to be fair, which the generally accepted meaning is to not have any self-interest (in moderating of the posts here) and to be impartial, and to enforce standards of civility without favoritism. This fairness that you have posted in your FAQ connects it with [...doing what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole...].
Keeping in mind your TOS here, I would think that there could be the potential IMO for one here to have an expectation that any statement posted here as unacceptable would still be unacceptable even if the author believes it. I guess the statement in question boils down to if it has the potential to put down one of another faith or not and thearfore it could be determined to be acceptable or not depending on that criteria.
The statement was aske to be rephrased which in the past meant that one could not continue posting if they did not rephrase the statement in question, I guess so that the rephrased statement could not have the potential to lead one of another faith to feel put down? I still feel inferior when I read that statement in question here, even if the author believes it or not.
The generally accepted meaning of {put down} could mean IMO that when a person reads what is in question here, that they:
A. have the potential IMO to feel inferior by the nature that their faith is being contrasted as having the potential to think that their faith is deficient to the faith being contrasted to.
B. have the potential IMO to feel that an attack to the person's dignity has been made by the nature that their faith is being writtin as having the potential IMO to mean that their faith is in some way lacking what is needed to be not obsolete.
C. feel that if the statement is allowed to stand approved, that there could be the potential IMO for an indoctrination by the administration to the members of the forum by the nature that there could be the potential for some members to think that one faith is being favored to have the foundation of their faith posted by the author writing that they believe it, where another faith is not approved to post their foundation of their faith if they believe it.
D. feel IMO that if the statement is allowed to stand as approved, that a hostil climate toward the faith that is being contrasted that could have the potential to lead one of that faith to feel put down, could have the potential to be fostered.
E. feel IMO that the perspective of the faith that the one led to feel put down by the statement in question could be defamed, which could IMO lead to the members of that faith feeling defamed.
This is connected to your posting that I would be expelled from this community if I was to post the foundation of my faith that I believe, that my God has revealed to me that He has given a commandment to me. The commandment is the foundation of the Jewish faith, it is the Jewish perspective about the service and worship of God, which is the mission of the faith forum.
If a foundation of the Christian faith, that could have the potential to lead a Jew and others that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom to feel put down, is allowed to be posted here without the author being told to be civil, then could there not be the potential for one to think that there could be the potential IMO for there to be two standards here? I guess that it might boil down to what is a foundation of the Christian faith to determine that? The foundation of a faith is what the faith is built on. Does in your opinion, the statement in question have the potential to be considered a part of what the Christian faith is built on? Are there not other faiths that do not accept the claimes of Christiandom so that they could believe that truth came by some other way?
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:742078
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/742168.html