Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 16:34:13
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 15:39:02
>
> We are both so persistent. :-)Why, yes we are. In my mind it's a friendly discussion. I hope the same is true for you??
> > I'll answer you so you can be freed for three more. Although I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)
>
> It is perhaps unfortunate that people have already recognized a way around the new posting system to be able abuse it. I will call it tag-team posting. I hope it does not become an issue.
>Well, I'm sure if it does, we can figure out another rule:)
Seriously - I don't expect it to be any more of an issue than multiple posting was. Or any less.
> I don't think God would repeal the Sixth Commandment were everyone to follow it.Maybe not, but would it have been written if nobody had done it? Why give people the idea?
> > > I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.
>
> > I would be more inclined to agree if the multiple posts were in the middle of a thread AND had nothing to do whatever with that thread. But in the case of one poster starting a thread and adding to it? I can't see a disruption.
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
>Point taken. I still like my idea of the site 'hiding' all but the first few and last few mesages on long threads. This would help even the cases where some get very long. This happens quite a bit now - with multiple posters - and doing this snuff a couple of birds with one chunk of a stone.
> > And I can't see how a rule with an arbitrary number that is also considered case-by-case (allowing for exceptions) could be enforced fairly.
>
> I don't think we yet know how it will be implemented.
>This is true.
> > > I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.
>
> > I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.
>
> As you have mentioned before, however, protecting the individual from the majority is often of critical importance.
>Touche! If it is something that really distresses you and it's not a minor pet peeve then you are right. Protecting your rights is just as important.
And I do believe I said protecting the *rights* of the minority, which *is* different than protecting the minority. It's a good thing to do, but different.
> > > I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me.
>
> > Perhaps I don't see why it is personal to you.
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
>Did I miss something? I can see where this shows what a screen full of the same thing would look like, but I can't see what makes it personal. Oh, well, I guess the why isn't that important anyway.
> > I (personally) see it more like the Patriot Act - where the rights of the few are trampled in the name of safety for the many.
>
> I think there will always be conflicts to be found between the desires of the individual and the interests of the majority (or state). Shouting "fire" in a movie theatre when there is none so as to incite a panic is one such example for which the health of the many takes precedence over the freedom of the individual to his speech.Again - big difference between "desires" and "rights." That's why the fire-in-the-theater one was settled at the Supreme Court level.
>
> > ps - it was nice having lots of time to reply, you being stuck at two and waiting for another post......
>
> :-)Gotcha.
Mel
poster:AuntieMel
thread:394224
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396429.html