Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2007, at 16:33:29

DR. Hsiung,
In regards to you policy that it is fine to discuss your decisions and such, the following decision by you is on the faith board and am not aquainted with the mechanics of transferring a post from there to this board.
In your post, you write, "I think that's good, thanks."
Your response was after the statement in question that was asked by the administration to be rephrased.
The statement in question has two parts joined by the conjunction, {but}. In the second part of the statement, there is {came by}.
The grammatical structure of {|came| by} is the past tense of {come}.
Looking at the statement in question, I feel ,as a Jew, put down when reading itl, for it conloins the law of Moses with the second part of the statement in question..
The rule for the forum are that if a statement has the potential to lead a person to feel put down, then it is uncivil. The rules also state that the intent does not change an uncivil statement to a civil statement, nor does if it is the opinion (which could be a beliefe) of the author.
Since I feel the statement in question leads {me} to feel put down , and you write that you think that the statement is good, by the author prefacing it with {I believe}, I think that then there is the potential for members to think that the administration is approving the statement and that the approval is because it is {by adding the preface}, while the statement in question remains the same.
I feel dehumanized when I read that because I have the understanding here that I could not post statements that have the potential to lead someone to feel put down , even if I wrote that I believed it, for is it not what can be seen by redacting the preface to statements that have the potential to lead one to feel put down?
The rule for the faith board is that if a doctrine of a faith is posted, it can be prefaced with, {people of my faith believe}. I think that that is different from, {I believe}.
But that is not suffucient to allow a statement that has the potential to put down one of another faith. For you have written that there are things (foundations of faiths) that can not be posted even if they preface it with {people of my faith believe}, because if the statement puts down another faith, it is uncivil according to the rules here and I think that the statement in question has the potential IMO to be considered a foundation of a faith.
I feel put down by reading the grammatical structure of the statement in question
It is my fear here that now others can, by your approval of this statement being civil by prefaceing it with {I believe}, post similar statements and they will be civil if they preface them with {I believe}.
There could be many interpretations to the bible verse in question here. In your rule that states that posts are uncivil if they {could lead}another to {feel} put down, I feel put down when I read the statment in question, and if I feel put down , there is the potential IMO for others to feel put down also when they read the statement in question, perhaps those that keep the law of Moses?
You write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole and ask the members here to trust you. And you write that if one wants to know your rationale for such, to ask.
I am asking you to post your rationale here for allowing the statement in question to stand by the author prefacing the statement with {I believe}. If you are going to cite your deputy's reply to me, could you take into consideration that I disagree in part with your deputy in her reply to me, although she did say that I was correct and I do agree with her there. But in her reply, I do not understand what she meant about "this is the truth" in post 736760. So if you consolodate your reply to me here with her reply as to stateing your rationale that I am asking for, could you also write what you think your deputy means?
If you could do that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:737093