Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2008, at 15:20:53
In reply to Lou's request for a redaction and exception-mkjgr, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2008, at 9:38:06
> > > > The "others" is the original poster whose post was being described.
> > >
> > > Dinah,
> > > You wrote,[...the "others" is the original poster...]
> > > I am unsure then as to what your rationale could be to think that the original poster whose post was being identified by Bayleaf in relation to Jews was of the nature as to cause the original poster to feel put down.
> > > This is because there are generally accepted meanings of what constitutes a statement that could lead someone to feel put down. And could it not be that the original poster wound need to be contacted to ask particular questions as to how the statement was perceived by him to make a determinationn as to if the statement by Bayleaf does or does not lead him to feel put down? If you could identify the rationale of what constitutes someone to feel put down that you used here to state that the original poster could feel put down by what Bayleaf posted, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung and his deputies,
> > I am requesting that the sanction to Bayleaf for what IMO that there is the potential for a Jew to consider to be a statement by her to be standing up for Jews here. I am requesting that the sanction to her to please be civil be redacted until a member of the administration posts here their criteria used to write here that Bayleaf's post could lead the original poster to feel put down.
> > I am also requesting that I be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts here to respond to the administration sanctioning IMO a statement that comes to the aid of Jews here and writing that Bayleaf's statement could lead the original poster to feel put down until the administration posts their criteria used to support such. And if they do post a criteria, then my posts could be redacted and then I could have the opportunity to then respond to the criteria that they post if they do post such. I think that the exception to allow me to post more than 3 consecutive post here could be good for the communty as a whole.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung and his deputies and members,
> Now the aspect of {jumping to a conclusion} is posted here. But what is {jumping} in relation to discussion?
> One of the generally accepted meanings of {to jump to a conclusion} is that the statement could be seen as being made with inadaquate premises or limited evidence to substantiate what is written as to be fact or not fact. This then means that an investigation could be made to determine if or if not there is adaquate evidence to make a conclusion or not to make a conclusion.
> Another way that grammatical statements could be deemed as being {jumping to a conclusion} is as to if there was a short time used to make the conclusion, sometimes referred to as a {hasty generalization}. But has there been a short time or a long period of ongoing aspects here posted related to the statement that the conclusion was {jumped to} or not? That could be investigated also to make that determination, for the archives could shed light on that.
> Then there becomes the aspect that the statement in question referrs to {rules made} here. Those rules made here could be seen and then determined as to if they are made or not made in regards to the conclusion as being jumped to or not if there could be seen, or not seen, what is in question here.
> Here is a link to a post that makes a rule (citation pstopem 13). I ask for interested members here that are considering to post in this thread to consider the following in your mind in making any post here because I think to consider the issues could enhance the outlook that one may have in composing their post:
> A. Who is the rule made to?
> B. What does the rule, in your opinion if you have one, intend to accomplish?
> C. Is the rule in the FAQ?
> D. Can you see another post here where another member posts a link of the nature in question without sanction?
> Lou
> (citation pstopem 13)
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/678294.htmlFriends,
It is now stated here that a member has jumped to a conclusion. I would like for you to make that determination on your own as to if the member that that is written to has or has not jumped to a conclusion.
You see, rules can be made toward a group of people or to one person of a group, but there are other ways to have rules made to one person or a group. One way is to make a rule and allow others than the one in question to be allowed to break the rule without sanction, or to make an exception for them by not applying the rule to them.
Here is a link to a post that brings up a thread. I have heard that kind of talk before but I never thought that I would hear it here. I ask those to consider what you read if you are going to post in this thread or parallel threads, for I think that if you do, you could have a better understanding of what it means here to jump or to not jump to a conclusion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429282.html
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:863266
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/870655.html