Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 394224

Shown: posts 103 to 127 of 291. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 16:48:28

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 16:34:13

> > 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??

Most certainly. I find this discourse stimulating. You debate well. I think much good has come of this.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Larry Hoover

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:20:10

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 13:44:56

Larry,
You wrote,[...I feel harrassed when I see a string of similar posts...]
If you are referring to my style of writing, I try to make each individual post have a difference in them so that they could be individually thought about. If you are referring to my posts as being consecutive,I am sorry that you feel harrassed, for it is not my intention to harrass anyone by posting here, but just to post for support. I have receved posts here that complment my postings and that they enjoy reading them and want me to continue. I really would like to change my style of writing to accomodate others feelings if I could. But in this case, I can not because I have a rare neurological condition that prevents me from posting like , I guess, others would like me to.
Lou

 

Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:28:42

In reply to Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:20:10

Larry,
You wrote,[...I feel pressured to attend a subject which may well be of little interest to me..].
If you are referring to my posts, I do not belive that anyone is pressured to read anyone's posts. Evryone here is free to read or not read. There are posts here that are available on a veriety of boards. It is close to having something for evryone. And I am proud that I have been able to be a part of this community and have seen changes made as a result of my efforts.
Lou

 

Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:38:35

In reply to Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:28:42

Larry,
You wrote,[...then being asked to justify a particular word...].
If you are referring to my requests for clarification, my requests are in general not for the other poster to justify a particular word , but to clarify something.
I am asking for this clarification so that I can respond accordingly. I feel that the requests allows the other poster to rephrase the statement, not to deminish the posters language for I also agree with you that we all write in a way that could have us use a word that was not intended. I just had a poster here respond to a request for clarification by me by saying that he did not mean to say it as he said it and he changed it to what he really meant. I feel that that is a good thing because we were able to continue our discussion after the clarification came forth. I feel that if I did not ask for clarification, then the discussion could end.
Lou.

 

Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 18:22:10

In reply to Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:38:35

I notice you reached the 3 consecutive post limit. But you can post to me if you like.

 

Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51

In reply to Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 18:22:10

Rosie,
Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
Lou

 

Re: Do you have any more thoughts?

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:21:42

In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51

It's within the rules. Of course if you do not wish to post me that is your prerogative.

> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> Lou

 

Please check this post DR BOB

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:27:05

In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51

I feel accused of attempting to circumvent the rules. Please rule whether it is civil to imply that another is trying to circumvent the rules which would be a put down and an accusation which would result in hurt feelings for the accused party. Thank you

> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> Lou

 

BOB the post in question

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:29:55

In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396506.html

 

The Post in question pt 2or 3

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:36:45

In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51


Please determine if I have been accused of participating in a conspiracy. I would consider this damaging to me and in violation of the rules. Thank you.

<some sort of affiliate>

 

Please do not post to me again » Lou Pilder

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:46:58

In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51

Thank you.


> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> Lou

 

Lou's reply to Rosie » RosieOGrady

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 20:49:41

In reply to Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 18:22:10

> I notice you reached the 3 consecutive post limit. But you can post to me if you like.

Rosie,
I am sorry that you see my reply as you do. I think there is a misunderstanding.
Your post was in the thread that I had used my 3 consecutive posts. What you wrote to me then goes to show that you were offering me an opportunity to post by posting a post to break the consecutivness. I do not want to be able to post on the basis that someone posted to start the consecutive posts over. I feel that if you wanted to converse with me, that in this instance, it would be to start a new thread with a new topic. That way, it would not appear that we had some type of affiliation together to enable me to overide the 3-post rule.
My apologies if I did nort make that clear in my writing.
Lou

 

Dr BOB please check this post 2

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:55:41

In reply to Lou's reply to Rosie » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 20:49:41

I feel accused by this party . He is offering interpretations of what I wrote which hurt me and are not accurate. Please determine if he is within the posting guidelins.Thank you

<What you wrote to me then goes to show that you were offering me an opportunity to post by posting a post to break the consecutivness.> I

 

I resign from Babble

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:58:07

In reply to Dr BOB please check this post 2, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:55:41

I resign from Babble to avoid the shame of being banned for breaking the 3 post rule.

 

Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:03:17

In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51

> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> Lou

Rosie,
In my reply to you, I stated that it would be easy for me or anybody else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
And that is why I did not want to overide the rule. I could have, but I chose not to because you did not want me to reply to anything that was from you, but to continue posting, which was a reply to Larry . Now I was posting to Larry, and not to you, so I did not feel that to post to you about Larry would be proper in this instance. Now if Larry was to post, then he would be opening the door to further discussion, but I do not think that others could open the door unless there was something that they posted to the discussion. Just saying that I can talk to you would be only breaking the consecutivness and I do not want it to appear that you and I could be doing that to overide the rule.
I am sorry that you feel the way you do about this and I apoplogize if there was a misunderstanding.
Lou

 

DR Bob please check this post

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:27:17

In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:03:17

I feel that trying to exclude a new person from the conversation should be against the rules. If a conversation is private it should be in e-mail. I thought everyone was allowed to participate on public threads. Attempting to exclude particular persons is hurtful. If someone doesn't want to reply don't but pleas don't allow this sort of "private conversation" you're not welcome here feelin. Yes I did want him to reply to me my question was Any more thoughts?

But after I asked him not to reply to me THEN he DOES and I feel lectured and put down and accused.

Please address this matter Thank you



>

not to because you did not want me to reply to anything that was from you, but to continue posting, which was a reply to Larry . Now I was posting to Larry, and not to you, so I did not feel that to post to you about Larry would be proper in this instance. Now if Larry was to post, then he would be opening the door to further discussion, but I do not think that others could open the door unless there was something that they posted to the discussion. Just saying that I can talk to you would be only breaking the consecutivness and I do not want it to appear that you and I could be doing that to overide the rule.
> I am sorry that you feel the way you do about this and I apoplogize if there was a misunderstanding.
> Lou
>

 

Lou's reply to Rosie-within rules » RosieOGrady

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:28:25

In reply to I resign from Babble, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:58:07

Rosie,
You wrote, [...it is within the rules...].
I'm sorry, but I feel that it is not within the rules. You see, that is why I did not want to acccept your offer. But I did write to you [...thank you for thinking of me...].
You were being sensitive to my wanting to continue to post and it appeared that you wanted to help me by breaking the consecutivness with just a post directed to you but with no topic to discuss. I felt good that someone would want to be that kind to offer me an opportunity to post when I had used up my 3 posts. But I do not think it is within the rules because you could have started a new thread which would have no connection to the fact that I had used my 3 posts. There is a higher rule than the rule itself. That rule may not be posted here, but that does not mean that it does not exist. I feel that it would be dishonest for me to continue to post on the basis that someone made a post that did not have a topic to discuss but to allow me to continue what I was posting to another person. I am not saying that you would think that way and I thanked you for the offer because I thought you wanted to help me .
Lou

 

Lou's response to Rosie » RosieOGrady

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:42:20

In reply to DR Bob please check this post, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:27:17

Rosie,
you wrote,[...I feel trying to exclude a person from a conversation is against the rules...].
If you are saying that I was trying to exclude you from the discussion in the thread, then my reply would be that I was not trying to exclude you from the discussion for you could have asked me something relevant to the discussion and I could have replied. You also could have addressed to Larry. You also could have posted a general comment to both me and Larry.
The only person that I feel was excluded from the discussion was me because of the 3-post rule, and I did not want to accept your offer to break the exclusion of me from the discussion by just posting that I could talk to you. I feel that for me to post would be a continuation of my posts in consecutivness, for I do not think that just any post could break the consecutivness rule. What if after my 3 post someone posted "good post, Lou" I do not think that that post could be a basis for the 3-post rule to be overided.
Lou

 

Dr BOB please Check this post

Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:48:03

In reply to Lou's response to Rosie » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:42:20

He has posted to me FOUR times since I asked him not to. I am feeling harassed. Please enforce the rules. Thank you.

> Rosie,
> you wrote,[...I feel trying to exclude a person from a conversation is against the rules...].
> If you are saying that I was trying to exclude you from the discussion in the thread, then my reply would be that I was not trying to exclude you from the discussion for you could have asked me something relevant to the discussion and I could have replied. You also could have addressed to Larry. You also could have posted a general comment to both me and Larry.
> The only person that I feel was excluded from the discussion was me because of the 3-post rule, and I did not want to accept your offer to break the exclusion of me from the discussion by just posting that I could talk to you. I feel that for me to post would be a continuation of my posts in consecutivness, for I do not think that just any post could break the consecutivness rule. What if after my 3 post someone posted "good post, Lou" I do not think that that post could be a basis for the 3-post rule to be overided.
> Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply - within rules

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 21:56:51

In reply to Lou's reply to Rosie-within rules » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:28:25

Hi Lou.

I think it is very laudable that you should have made adjustments in your posting style to be able to fit your posts within the new guidelines. In addition, you demonstrate a respect for the spirit of the new guidelines to not look for ways to circumvent them disrespectfully. Since I can't fully appreciate how difficult this has been for you, I can only say thank you. I hope you are able to find ways to express yourself to a completeness that satisfies your desires to communicate.

Sincerely,
Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply - within rules » SLS

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 22:01:00

In reply to Re: Lou's reply - within rules, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 21:56:51

Hi Lou.

> I think it is very laudable that you should have made adjustments in your posting style to be able to fit your posts within the new guidelines. In addition, you demonstrate a respect for the spirit of the new guidelines to not look for ways to circumvent them disrespectfully. Since I can't fully appreciate how difficult this has been for you, I can only say thank you. I hope you are able to find ways to express yourself to a completeness that satisfies your desires to communicate.

I look forward to reading your contributions to Psycho-Babble.


- Scott

 

Two posts above meant to be addressed to Lou (nm)

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 22:03:20

In reply to Re: Lou's reply - within rules » SLS, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 22:01:00

 

Re: BOB the post in question » RosieOGrady

Posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:31

In reply to BOB the post in question, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:29:55

Wow, that was fast. I think my neck snapped.
gg

 

To Dr. Hsiung

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:43

In reply to Dr BOB please Check this post, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:48:03

DR. Hsiung,
I thought that the poster ,Rosie, was posting to me because I saw the phrase, [...in reply to Lou Pilder...] in the posts and thought that the poster in question was replying to me and that the [...do not post to me was lifted...]. After looking at how the posts are set up with the different names, I then realized this mistake. This is a mistake by me and not an intentional one and I apologize for answeing the poster.
Lou Pilder

 

Re: BOB the post in question » gardenergirl

Posted by Gabbix2 on September 28, 2004, at 23:28:41

In reply to Re: BOB the post in question » RosieOGrady, posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:31

> Wow, that was fast. I think my neck snapped.
> gg

: )


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.