Posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2013, at 23:30:02
In reply to Lou's reply-gauxehyhed » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2013, at 11:22:38
> If you say that when you use that the statement in question is {OK}, that the statement is {supportive}, that is one thing and then I will answer you to that. If you say that {OK} in the context does not mean that it is supportive, then I will answer you to that.
I probably meant "OK" to mean "acceptable" and "supportive" to mean "helpful". So OK wouldn't necessarily mean supportive.
> the question becomes as to why you think it will be good for you or the community as a whole, if you are following your own TOS that states that you do what will be good for the community as a whole, to leave my request outstanding.
My thinking was, if posters see me not respond to you, then they themselves may not respond to you -- instead of responding to you in uncivil ways. They might accept someone they cannot change.
Can you accept someone you cannot change? I don't feel you're uncivil to me often, but I wouldn't exactly say I feel accepted by you, either.
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:1050116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1050356.html