Posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2009, at 10:14:20
In reply to Re: Lou's request to members-grpagrmnt? » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on January 24, 2009, at 15:06:59
> > If no other interpretations are posted here, could I then not think that the statement in question has the potential for myself and others to think that it is the accepted interpretation by the members of the forum here?
> > Lou
> >
>
> You certainly could think whatever you like, Lou, as always. However, the likelihood that such a conclusion based on a non-event (lack of replies) would be a valid and reliable explanation of others' behavior (or non-behavior as it were) seems to me to be low. There could be and likely would be many, many other reasonable explanations for something not occuring. And how long would you allow for replies before forming that conclusion? What's that saying again, "You can't prove a negative"?
>
> gggardenergirl,
You wrote,[...the likelihood...seems to me to be low...there could be.. many other reasonable explanations...How long would you allow for replies before forming that conclusion?...].
In,[...low...], I am unsure as to ;
A. How low is the {low} that you are referring to here? On a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being the lowest, where would you put the likelihood to be?
B.If you answer (A) above, what criteria do you use for the number that you state in (A)?
In,[...other reasonable explanations...] if you have one, could you post one or more of them here?
In,[...how long would you...?]
I am waiting for anyone to post their opinion if it is different. I guess if the member that posted the statement in question posted one way or the other, then that could determine that or not?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:874861
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20090116/msgs/876040.html