Posted by Lou Pilder on April 23, 2008, at 6:17:38
In reply to Lou's reminder to Robert Hsiung-falslit, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2008, at 6:59:45
> > > > > > B. In those criteria,if any, could you allow the statement in question, just because the poster writes that they believe it? If so, how does the fact that the member posting the statement in question that they believe it make the statement any less to the recipiant that {feels} put down or accused when they read it?
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on the statement. "I believe Dr. Bob has gone overboard" could still lead me to feel accused.
> > > > >
> > > > > > C. If a member objects to you that a statement here makes them feel put down or accused, do you have some way to say to them that the statement in question does not make them feel put down or accused, even though the member reporting writes that they feel accused or put down when they read the statement in question?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, of course not.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you could reply to any of the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou, I welcome feedback, but I can get busy sometimes, and don't have a staff to reply for me, so I'm afraid I can't respond to all posts to me. I hope you understand, and please do feel free to continue to add your voice to the discussion here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > You wrote,[...I can get busy...don't have a staff...I can't respond to all posts...do..continue to add...].
> > > > From what you wrote above here, and since you do respond to posts, then I ask as to what is the criteria, if any, that you use to determine as to which posts that you will respond to and which posts that you will not respond to? If I and the other members here could know of your criteria used for that, then I and others could have the opportunity to use those criteria for to have either an expectation for a reply from you or not.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > In regards to if you are intending to reply to me here concerning your statement and my reply to you here about what your criteria are, if any, for responding to other's requests to you or not, I would like for you to consider in any reply to me here in this thread the following of a concern of mine that I do not see a reply from you to me here that identifies what posts could or could not be good for the community as a whole about my concerns in relation to requesting clarification and guidance concerning site rules.
> > > My concern was and still is as to what you are wanting to mean by your TOS that writes to trust you and that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. This was my concern on June 22, 2007 where I was asking for you in relation to actions that you have taken and for you to post your rationale that I had asked you for in relation for you to post examples of posts that could or could not be good for the community as a whole in relation to seeking clarification and guidance concerning site rules here.
> > > You wrote on June 22, 2007,
> > > [...My suggestion is oriented to those administrative posts that seek clarification and guidance regarding site rules. Perhaps before we post them (the requests) we could ask ourselves whether doing so is likely to be productive and constructive for the community as a whole?...]This was a reply by you to a member about members posting requests to you and I am a member that has requested many clarifications concerning site rules here.(citation uhnwlg 16)
> > > If I or anyone else here is to ask themselves as to if what they are requesting clarification and guidance for will or will not be good for the community as a whole, I think that since your TOS also writes that if one would want to know your rationale to just ask and that also your TOS says that the administrative board is for discussion about the administration of the forum and it is fine to discuss actions that you take, rules, policy and such and to remind you of outstanding requests.
> > > This concern of mine here is of significant importance to me because I have many requests to you here for clarification and guidance concerning site rules and I would like to know and would like the forum members to also know, if my requests to you for clarification are or or not good for the community as a whole according to any rationale that you may have for making that determination. Also, others could also know your criteria for such for them to post what could or could not be good for the community as a whole according to yout thinking. So if you are going to post your criteria for responding to member's requests to you here, I would like for you to include this in any reply to me here. (citation uhnwlg 17)
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > citation uhnwlg 16
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/764902.html
> > > citation uhnwlg 17
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070702/msgs/773879.html
> > >
> > >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > There is to me a serious nature in this that I am very concerned about. You write that you can not respond to all posts to you, but you do respond to posts here. I am unsure as to what criteria you have, if any, that you use for responding to member's requests here.
> > The seriousness to me in this situation is that there is the potential, IMO, because you post concerning that there could be requests for clarification and guidance to you that could either be good for the community as a whole or not and that you write that members could ask themselves that before posting their request for claification. This is of great importance to me for you to identify, by using some type of example as to what a request could be that could be good for the community as a whole, and one that could not be good for the community as a whole, as examples for others to use to make their own determination as to if my requests are or are not good for the community as a whole according to your thinking here.
> > You see, since you have posted concerning posts requesting clarification and guidance that others IMO could think that some could be of the nature that the requests could not be good for the community as a whole, then I feel that there is the potential for me to be stigmatized here as a member that requests clarification and guidance concerning site rules that could not be considered by you to be good for the community as a whole untill you post your examples that I have requested that could distinguish between requests for clarification or guidance that are or are not good for the community as a whole.
> > I can not think of a request for clarification or guidance to you about site rules that could not be good for the community as a whole and if there is one I am asking for you to post here such an example to compare my requests to your example of one that could not be good for the community as a whole. But you have rasied IMO the spector that there could be requests to you for clarification and guidance that could not be good for the community as a whole and I would like to clear this up, for if there is the potential IMO for me to be stigmatized, then there is also the potential IMO for me to be used as a scapegoat here and I would like this cleared up.
> > Lou Pilder
> > here is a link to the correction to the link in the preceding post.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/773879.html
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your TOS here that you take responsibility for what you post here,(citation dfm7), this is my reminder in accordance with your reminder procedure , the above concerns of mine.
> Now I have more concerns because you have posted to others here and not to my concerns in the above posts which leads me to have a want to know what your rationale could be for posting to others but not to me in relation to my concerns from what you have posted that could IMO have the potential to lead some others to think that what you posted here is about my posting requests for clarification and guidance concerning site rules and such.
> When I read what you have posted here, and you write in your TOS tha you take responsibility for what you post, I feel that IMO others could have the potential to put me in a light of someone that posts requests to you that could have the potential to be not good for the community as a whole and I would like for you to post as to if you are wanting to mean that any of my requests to you for guidance and clarification about site rules are in your thinking not good for the community as a whole, and why you think that, so that I could respond to whatever you post here about me concerning my requests to you for clarification and guidance about site rules.
> There is a principle called {false light}. Are you aware of that principle? I do not want to be cast in a false light here and in my opinion there is the potential for that to happen to me here untill my concerns in the above posts to you are cleared up in relation to your TOS that you welcome feedback and it is fine to discuss actions that you take and to ask for your rationale and to discuss rules and post reminders for such requests outstanding.
> Lou Pilder (citation defm7)
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#missionMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your procedure here to keep reminding you of outstanding requests, the above.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:821127
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/824927.html