![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 57 to 81 of 87. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 13:43:59
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Gabbix2, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 12:22:33
> What if I were to decide that I would break each of my intended submissions into multiple posts, each containing a single word. I shall declare this to be my style. Am I not to be allowed to post in this style as long as I remain civil? I might never ask a single person for a clarification.
> Perhaps it is time to establish posting quotas so that posting priveleges here are not abused. Posting to this site is indeed a privelege and not a civil right. (At least, not at the moment). It is a real shame that this should become necessary.
It only takes one person to make this necessary.
- Scott
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 14:14:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 13:43:59
> > What if I were to decide that I would break each of my intended submissions into multiple posts, each containing a single word. I shall declare this to be my style. Am I not to be allowed to post in this style as long as I remain civil? I might never ask a single person for a clarification.
That's why I mentioned a rule limiting the number of sequential posts by one poster.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 14:16:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 13:43:59
> > What if I were to decide that I would break each of my intended submissions into multiple posts, each containing a single word. I shall declare this to be my style. Am I not to be allowed to post in this style as long as I remain civil? I might never ask a single person for a clarification.
I took this from my original repponse to you
Because nobody can really judge intent, but so many are upset, a restriction of sequential posts by one poster would be fair, and perhaps even be a kindness. For instance I've met people with certain kinds of'obsessive Compulsive disorders who's minds were put at ease by having restricted guidelines to work within
>
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 14:26:59
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 13:27:21
> Gabbix2,
> You wrote,[...I think that there could be people that could be upset by a particular style of posting...{but that would not make it necessarrily uncivil}...]
> Then you wrote that[...I do not think that there is malicious intent or unkindness here...].
> I appreciate your observations that you have posted.Thank you!
> Then you state that you think it would be fair to restrict the number of posts by one poster.
> What would your idea be as to how many posts that one poster should be restricted to to be fair?Well I've always been fond of the number three.
But until we get an idea whether or not such a restriction will be implemented I suppose it doesn't really matter much what I think about it.Have a good day Lou
And remember.. Gabbi spelled backwards is ibbaG
Posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 14:28:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » SLS, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 14:14:45
> > > What if I were to decide that I would break each of my intended submissions into multiple posts, each containing a single word. I shall declare this to be my style. Am I not to be allowed to post in this style as long as I remain civil? I might never ask a single person for a clarification.
>
>
> That's why I mentioned a rule limiting the number of sequential posts by one poster.
That's a good thought.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 14:32:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 14:26:59
Gabbix2
You wrote that you are fond of the number three. Hummmmmmm.
My opinion of the number of posts would be 16.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 14:54:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 14:32:19
Friends,
There has been discussion here about my writing style and if a policy should be written to somehow not allow me to post in my style.
Well, I have some ideas about that that I would like to share with you.
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 15:06:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Gabbix2, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 14:28:14
> >
> > That's why I mentioned a rule limiting the number of sequential posts by one poster.
>
>
> That's a good thought.
>
Thanks! :)
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 15:09:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 14:32:19
> Gabbix2
> You wrote that you are fond of the number three. Hummmmmmm.
> My opinion of the number of posts would be 16.
> Lou
>Sixteen!!!!! Oh I could never get through that many from top to bottom and remember what the original point was. I think it would take up too much space.It's nice number all on it's own though.
And speaking of numbers of posts. This is my last one here today.Take care Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 15:14:36
In reply to Lou's ideas about the number of posts, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 14:54:51
Friends,
I think that a policy to restrict speech in the manner suggested would not have the effect of increasing support as the goal of the forum. I belive that it , if implamented, has the potential of deminishing support.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 15:27:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 15:09:21
Gabbix2,
You wrote, [...I could never get through...]
I do not believe that one could [... {never} get through....]. I have read some posts here that are longer in one post than my 10 posts of one post.
I do not feel that the amount of space needed to post can be restricted. If that was the case, then I feel that the goal of the forum, support, could be restricted because one could be limited to what they could say.
I give support to say what someone feels is needed by them to be said to be more important than restricting them from posting.
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 20:14:58
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop-2 » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 15:27:39
> Gabbix2,
> You wrote, [...I could never get through...]
> I do not believe that one could [... {never} get through....].I should have said, I would probably not
read all 16 posts because I find I lose my train of thought, basically I find it awkward, and move on to something else.I have read some posts here that are longer in one post than my 10 posts of one post.
It's not about length it's about the structure
it disrupts my flow of thought.
> I do not feel that the amount of space needed to post can be restricted. If that was the case, then I feel that the goal of the forum, support, could be restricted because one could be limited to what they could say.Out of respect for others we are already limited to what we may say. This would simply
be another of those instances.> I give support to say what someone feels is needed by them to be said to be more important than restricting them from posting.
> LouI think you think that's true for *YOU*
But if someone made most of us "uncomfortable" by feeling the need to post hate literature
I don't think that you would think that should be supportedWe all have to work with in certain boundaries here, I think It's a matter of compromise. Everyone has beliefs about what constitutes a supportive board and it would be impossible to implement them all.
That's it for me Lou, I'm tired.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 20:39:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 20:14:58
Gabbix2,
you wrote,[...it's not about length its about the structure...]and [...we are limited to what we can say...].
I agree that there alrweady limited to what we can say, but I know of no restriction as to the structure because I have been using this structure for years and Dr. Hsiung has previously written that he does not want to restrct freedom of speech anymore than he already has by requiering a particular structure of posts when this came up previously. I agree with Dr. Husing about this and I am serching for that url for that now.
I do not think that it is disrespectful to others to post on a mental health board in my style, and since this is the only way that my limitations can allow mw to post, then I would not be allowed to be an equal member here if some quota system was implemented or that my style of posting could not be used because I would not be able to express myself in the restriction that I would be requiered to abide by. In a sense, that type of restriction could serve to have the potential to cause me to break the rule because of my limitations in order to be a posting member here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 21:07:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 20:14:58
Gabbix2,
I wrote,[...I give support to say what someone feels is needed by them to be said to be more important than restricting them from posting...]
You asnswered,
I think you think that's true for *YOU*
But if someone made most of "uncomfortable" by feeling the need to post hate liturature
I don't think that you would think that should be supported.The posting of hate liturature is restricted on the basis of it's content. It is my understanding that there is an objection to my style of posting, not the content. I do not champion people's want to post hate liturature. There are many posts by me in the archives attesting to that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 21:26:18
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop-uncv » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 21:07:25
Gabbix2,
The topic of the style that I use here came up previously. That time, it was the style's use of paraphrasing vs direct quoteing.
Dr Hsiung examined the whole thought behind the poster's wanting me not to use that style.
His decision was that freedom of speech is restricted and that if the style was to be restricted also, that he would not want to further restrict freedom of speech. His decision also said that even if there are misunderstandings as a result of that style,misunderstandings can be corrected.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/212741.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 21:36:56
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-Dr Hsg-rstct spch~ » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 21:26:18
Gabbix2,
It also cam up previously about my style of posting reletive to the successive post style. I rember Dr. Hsing anserwing those that did not want me to use that style with something like h,[...he's not huting anyone...] in doing so.
I am looking for the URL now.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 21:40:19
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-~hrt » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 21:36:56
the correction involves,[hes not {huting} anyone...]
This should have been, [...hes not {hurting }anyone...] (by using the successive of posts)
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 0:11:08
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-lim » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 20:39:17
Lou,
> I do not think that it is disrespectful to others to post on a mental health board in my style,
I, for one, disagree. I feel disrespected by your posting behavior.
> and since this is the only way that my limitations can allow mw to post,
How so?
Perhaps people here can help you find alternatives to working with this limitation. I, for one, would be willing to offer suggestions if you could provide more details regarding the condition you now feel is intractable.
> then I would not be allowed to be an equal member here
I'm not sure this issue remains to be about you personally, Lou. I think your posting behavior has demonstrated a general need that was not previously recognized. I don't think unlimited posting is tenable for the health of the community, or perhaps even for the logistical existence of the website.
An arbitrary posting limit will be ascertained, and will afford each member of the posting community an equal opportunity to participate. This will be, necessarily, a compromise of desires between those who want to see unlimiting posting and those who do not. Within this compromise, I believe that virtually all of the members will be able to express themselves to an extent equal to that which they have thusfar enjoyed.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 27, 2004, at 10:28:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 27, 2004, at 0:11:08
> An arbitrary posting limit will be ascertained, and will afford each member of the posting community an equal opportunity to participate. This will be, necessarily, a compromise of desires between those who want to see unlimiting posting and those who do not. Within this compromise, I believe that virtually all of the members will be able to express themselves to an extent equal to that which they have thusfar enjoyed.
Sorry to interrupt, but to consolidate the discussion, I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding posting limits to a later thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395699.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 11:26:34
In reply to techy point of view of multiple posts, posted by NikkiT2 on September 26, 2004, at 12:50:23
Oh my. Now I feel bad. I try to be helpful and supportive. I hadn't thought of it in that way. I'm probably the biggest offender at Babble.
Oh my. I'm sorry everyone, for monopolizing the boards.
Sorry, Dr. Bob. I didn't know how to redirect to another thread on the same page.
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 12:19:14
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 21, 2004, at 21:45:51
I objected to the wording when Dr. Bob first proposed it. It seemed overly harsh. I'm not sure where, but it's in the Admin archives somewhere.
He considered it and decided to make it part of the intro anyway. I doubt he'll change his mind, so I think it's just one of those things we have to live with to post here.
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 12:25:59
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 14:26:59
This one's gonna be my Waterloo, Gabbi. So far I've made sure not to have posted more than three posts in response to any one post, but I'm trying to fight the urge to post four posts in a row, wait for Dr. Bob's PBC and do it again to be blocked. As I'm getting more agitated every second, I imagine I'll do it.
I figure it's going to happen anyway, so why put myself through the anxiety of waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 12:44:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 12:25:59
> This one's gonna be my Waterloo, Gabbi. So far I've made sure not to have posted more than three posts in response to any one post, but I'm trying to fight the urge to post four posts in a row, wait for Dr. Bob's PBC and do it again to be blocked. As I'm getting more agitated every second, I imagine I'll do it.
Oh, well that's why I specified sequential posts.
Maybe that's the exact meaning of sequential. What I meant was one post directly after another by the same poster. I think there would be far to many instances where one would want to respond to a thread more than 3 times, especially those threads that go on for years!
Posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 12:57:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Dinah, posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 12:44:18
That'll happen too. It has many times in the past, and it will again. I could try to get around it through technicalities, but what's the point. I try to be a good girl, but if I know up front I can't be, I just try to avoid the situation. I guess that's part of being a good girl.
Did I ever tell you about me and my therapist? I'd call and leave him a message to call me and then call and leave another message not to call me and so on and so forth. He never minded because I didn't expect a reply to each call. Maybe it's part of my illness.
Oh well, I'm hoping Dr. Bob will just block me up front so we don't have to go through any dramatics.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 27, 2004, at 13:14:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-nop » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on September 27, 2004, at 12:57:11
Can I claim that all I reall said was that I was fond of the number three and it had really nothing to do with the subject at hand?
You know, I've done the same thing.. really.
I wasn't honestly giving it a lot of thought
because it wasn't an official discussion yet.
And I wasn't all here yesterday, nor am I nearly here at all now. (I have to go to emerg, nothing serious, just trying to get up the gumption, it makes me nervous)
I too, leave sequential phone calls, and posts.
(Well we know that)
Oh I feel bad.
I feel as if I've just been making messes all over lately.
And it would of course be the ONE and the ONLY time Bob actually listens to a suggestion of mine.
Oh the irony of that.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.