Posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2007, at 8:35:39
In reply to Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-idim, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2007, at 16:10:29
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > I am asking you to reinstate Phillipa immediatly untill the adjudication that you post that you would like to have as to that all can accept. So far, I see no member here that accepts your action that you have taken to ostracize the member, Phillipa. There is also no post that I can find that could tell Phillipa not to use[...more often than not...] and there are many posts in the archives that use that phrase.
> > I think that while others accept your invitation to discuss this, that Phillpa could be reinstated so as not just to offer her own defense of the action taken, but that I do not see that there is {probable cause} for her to be ostracised for what I see as similar statements that others have written without sanction nor do I see any potential harm to come to the community.
> > You write in your TOS here that you do what will be good for the community as a whole. Could you post here a post where the phrase in question is used and it was sanctioned? If not,if you are ostracizing Phillipa for the good of the community as a whole, why could it be good for the community as a whole to ostracize Phillipa if there is not any post sanctioning the use of [...more often than not...] and it has been posted many times?
> > I think that it would be OK to post that from now on the phrase,{more often than not}, will be considered overgenerilizing, which in my thinking is considtant with the doctrine of {fairness} as you write that you try to be in your TOS here.
> > Lou PIlder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The phrase,{more often than not}can be used as a {figurative} phrase rahther than a quantitative one. It could be considered like an {idiom} such as {take it with a grain of salt}.
> In Phillipa's use of the phrase, there is no mention of a record kept tallying the number of uses of each blood-pressure device and the outcomes from each use. The reader knows this just as if someone said, {a stitch in time saves nine}. The numbers are figurative. The measurablity was determined not by recording events, but by a broad guess as to over the years how the two devices recoreded in her memory. Her memory may be wrong and the use of the phrase is sometimes used to shoew a guess, not an exact measurment. When I hear the phrase used, more often than not, I do not give it credance to be definitive to any conclusion because I see the phrase as a {shot in the dark}. Now you know no one took a gun at me when they used that phrse with me, do you not?
> If soomeone really wanted to make a definitive measurment, they could use something like,{nine out of ten doctors prefer tylonol} or {78% of skydivers are men}. These type of statements show numbers, but a phrase like, {more often than not} could be taken with a grain of salt.
> Lou PIlder
>Friends,
In this discussion, I would like for discussants to examine the following links;
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020503/msgs/105019.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20060125/msgs/609503.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070726/msgs/773896.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040627/msgs/360990.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041108/msgs/415564.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040624/msgs/362502.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021010/msgs/31262.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030807/msgs/250066.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030802/msgs/248602.html
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:803042
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/803235.html