Posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 9:07:30
In reply to Re: from what I recall » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on September 7, 2004, at 8:30:09
> Lar, my understanding of the actual rule as originally written was that a Do Not Post request was universal, not specific. And that posting to someone that you requested not post to you was in effect a lifting of the ban. So if I ask someone that I asked not to post to me a question, and they answer, they're in the clear. Their answer must, of course, follow the civility rules. But they're not in trouble for posting to me.
That makes sense, but.....replying to a factual component of the thread is not a violation of the "do not post" rule.
"Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them."
If someone replied to the factual basis of the thread, or the debated subject, I would not consider that to be a post to me, and it appears that Bob would not, either. And that's explicitly what I was trying to do. Steer the poster to facts/contended implications, or don't post (in reply to me) at all.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:387548
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/387584.html