Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 13:34:20
In reply to Lou's reply/reminder to Dr. Hsiung-July 11-tksprc » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2007, at 9:55:53
> > > In regards to your procedure to remind you concerning outstanding requests concerning asking for your rationale, concerns about policy, rules and actions that you take, I had requested on July 11 concerns of mine about your post ...
> >
> > Thanks for the reminders. From now on, however, please post them as follow-ups to the outstanding requests and not as new threads. Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> Dr. Hsiung,
> In your reply to me above, the reply to me was linked to a post by me that is following your procedure where you writw that if someone wants to know your rationale for something to just ask and that it is fine to discuss actions that you take, policy and rules and such.
> In the post that your reply is linked to , I had requested on July 11 to know about your policy, rationale, rules and actions and such you take relevant to that you have posted the following:
> A.[...I don't consider it civil to post {anything} that could lead others to feel put down, including anti_Semitic statements. Still, I think that it's inevitable that particular posters sometimes won't fell supported by particular posts...]
> B. You posted on 7-22-02,
> [...Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? >But being supportive takes precedence<. My approach to civility is, |it doesn't matter if someone really believes something--or to some extent even if it is true--if it is uncivil they shouldn't post it| (Robert Hsiung 7-22-02)
> I am trying to determine if there are or are not two standards here. For the action that you have taken in regards to posting that {you think it is good} for a post to be prefaced with {I believe} after it was unapproved and then became approved by the allowing of the member to modify the unapproved version of the statement with {I believe} is having me a request for a want for infomation concerning your rationale and action you have taken and policy and rules here.
> The request that I have is in the last statement by me in the post that you linked to here,
> [...Since it was approved by you, could you clarify what is the standard {your rationale} then that approves it keeping in mind what you have posted concerning if one believes it and that{...being supportive takes place...} (per you post on 7/22/02)
> Here is the link to a request concerning this on July 11
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768966.html
>The correction is that the last word in {...being supportive takes (..)...} is {...being supportive takes (precedence)...}
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:768966
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/773747.html