Posted by Dr. Bob on July 13, 2005, at 0:47:20
In reply to Re: Larry Hoover's Block » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 12, 2005, at 4:42:42
> > > He misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
> >
> > Even after it was clarified?
>
> You mean my post explaining common useage? I'm not sure he saw that as definitive. He was going by the FAQ. Perhaps if you saw my post and agreed with it you could have put a more official stamp on it.Sure, but you did explicitly say:
> Dr. Bob will correct me (I'm sure) if I'm wrong.
Besides, I do think Emmy could've felt harassed.
> I doubt that anyone requests a DNP for no reason at all. Desiring to disengage or trying to avoid blowing up and being uncivil is an internal reason ... but it seems valid.
Right, the question is what reasons to consider valid. Should feeling angry, for example, be considered a valid reason?
> > And this one I think is ambiguous as it stands:
> >
> > > "I regret that we have never agreed on wall color."
>
> Yet this is the one that Lar was blocked under. The use of "we" in context of the rest of the post.The issue with Larry's post didn't have anything to do with the use of "we".
> > > a poster violating the DNP should be given a Please Honor the Do Not Post, and a statement of the consequences of future DNP violations.
> >
> > So "no" wouldn't mean "no"? That would be fine with me, if that's what everyone would like...
>
> No would mean no. It's just no with a warning. Especially in the early stages of a rule which is still being worked out.Again, that would be fine with me if that's the consensus. But "no" would mean "only one more time" for a while, and then mean "no"? I've treated this differently than the civility rules because those have to do with my wishes, whereas this has to do with those of other posters.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:523749
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/526998.html