Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2006, at 19:20:22
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung-3conpost » Lou Pilder, posted by sunnydays on October 15, 2006, at 17:18:46
SD,
You wrote,[...if 20 people respond to you (or if you are responding to 20 others), you can post 20 consecutive posts being a response to each one.
I have seen many do that, maybe not 20, and agree with that, for if that exception was not listed, one could possibly be kept from offering support to them if they could not post their response to them because of the rule.
This is my point. If the rule could keep one from offering support or education, then the rule could IMO contradict the mission of the forum and the rule could IMO be uncivil. With all the exceptions, then what does the rule accomplish if it prevents one from responding to a member in 4 consecutive posts, while they could post 20 consecutive posts to different members, and what could be its purpose, for the {less confident member} will see 20 consecutive posts and that is OK. What do you think is then, in your opinion,the purpose of the rule?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:692964
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/695092.html