Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 17:15:37
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post-~k?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 16:51:42
> > > > I am also requesting that I be allowed here to post what I need to post if it means that more than 3 consecutive posts are needed by me to have dialog with you concerning your action in question here and the potential for a policy that could arrise from you allowing to stand the statement in question as being acceptable here with the preface {I believe} to it.
> > > > Your rule concerning the prohibition of posting more than 3 consecutive posts is about [...more then 3 consecutive posts may discourage {less confident posters} from joining in...easier for them to help...].
> > > > In regards to your rule, could not this discussion be between just me and you and those that are not in the catagory of being a {less confident} poster? If so, then the {less confdent poster} may not want to be a party to this discussion and thearfore might not your rule have the potential to not be applicable here in this discussion?
> > >
> > > ~~~ I respectfully request Dr. Bob would not make exceptions to the three post guideline based on the discussion would be between Dr. Bob and one other poster. If a "private" one on one discussion is wanted and multiple postings are to serve in the one on one, I believe it should be done via emails as opposed to a board viewable and "open to all registered" for posting.
> > >
> > > I have checked the archives and prior to the three post rule, just this Adm. board had several posts per viewable page with 13-15 consecutive followups by one poster. I believe not only does the three post rule aid more timid posters but also is a means to not fill up a viewable page with the questions, comments, diagraming, and breaking down of one issue in which that process has always made me feel annoyed and putdown. I think the three post rule works well to prevent one poster from "hogging" threads - which I consider uncivil.
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...not make exceptions...aid more timid posters..prevent one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads..consider uncivil...]
> > When this first came up, there were exceptions made to accomodate particular circumstances. The rule here is that it is made so that something like that [the less confident poster} can join in easier.
> > In my wondering as to what the rationale could be for the exceptions that have been made to this rule , I guess, are that the need for the poster to post more than 3 consecutive posts was more important to support and education than the need for the {less confidant poster} to have it easier for them to join in?
> > If that be the case here, then I think that an administrative discussion about the {action taken by the administration} and the policy here could be a discussion that could have a need for the discussant to post more than 3 consecutive posts in order for them to bring out the aspects of what they think about the action tsken by the administrator or the policy here, to have the potential IMO to be like the other exceptions that have already been made here.
> > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> It is written here,[...one poster from (redacted by respondant)threads-which I consider uncivil...].
> I am unsure as to what the poster is wanting to have purported (conveyed) here in regards to the above. I am unsure because it is not my intention to be one that could be characterized as(redacted by resopondant)a thread by posting more than 3 consecutive posts. My purpose is in responding to the administration's invitation that it is fine here to discuss the actions taken by the administration and the policy here.
> Since this is a function of the administrative forum, I feel that I am welcomed here to discuss the adminstator's actions and policy and that the adminiistrator is willing to have dialog with me as per their invitation to do so. Others are under no obligation to join the discussion, but could if they like.
> Now since this is IMO the proper place for an administrative discussion about the actions that the administration takes and the policy, I feel that a statement here that could have the potential IMO to arrouse antisemitic feelings could have the potential to have me be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts because of the importance IMO for this to be discussed as being more important IMO to support and education here than for a {less confident poster} to have it easier for them to join in this type of discussion. The statement in question , if left as approved here, could IMO be a match to cause a forest fire that could IMO have the potential to spread here and to spread to other forums. Others may see it differently, and this is fine to discuss what others think about the action and policy that the administration is taking here concerning the statement in question.
> If there is something that anyone would like to discuss here concerning this without posting it here, you could email me if you like.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
Ftiends,
I is written here,[...I have checked the archives...13-15 consecutive follow-ups by one poster...].
I remember a thread where I posted many follow ups that could be the one in question here. It was one where a statement was IMO one that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings concerning the God that the Jews cherish and worship. After the posts by me, a determination was made by Dr. Hsiung to show that an aspect that was posted in the thread to be unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum and took administrative action. I feel that the Jews reading that thread now and others that also thought that some aspects of the thread in question could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, could now see that any match that could have the potential to start IMO a forest fire here from that thread to spread here or to another forum was quenched. I think that it is more important for me here to put out potential fires than to keep silent until another poster posts after I have already posted 3 consecutive posts. For if on one was to wait for a post from another poster for a long time, or potentially not at all, in that thread, then could not any fire that could have IMO the potential to be started still be burning?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:742078
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743280.html