![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 133 to 157 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 29, 2004, at 8:52:01
In reply to Re: BOB the post in question » RosieOGrady, posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:31
I don't understand
> Wow, that was fast. I think my neck snapped.
> gg
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 29, 2004, at 9:01:03
In reply to Re: BOB the post in question » gardenergirl, posted by RosieOGrady on September 29, 2004, at 8:52:01
i think this uproar over allowing more than 3 posts must be an expression of underlying anxiety and desires which must not be openly expressed in PB society.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 29, 2004, at 12:07:00
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2004, at 4:51:17
> > Please summarize this rule in it's entirety and post it
>
> As you can see, this is an ongoing process, but how about:
>
> Please share these boards with others by not posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread or starting more than 3 consecutive new threads on the same board. Unless you're responding to earlier posts one at a time.Thanks for doing this.
>
> > so that all can follow it without getting spanked.
> >
> > gardenergirl
>
> Are people feeling treated like bad children?I can't speak for others, sorry.
>
gg
Posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 13:32:10
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on September 29, 2004, at 12:07:00
holy cow! what the heck is going on? would *someone* mind telling me where the offending posts are that started this discussion? please? has anyone tried simply requesting that they curtail all the consecutive posting? (forgive me for being so behind on the news.):) thanks in advance for some info..amy
Posted by AuntieMel on September 29, 2004, at 14:49:50
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 15:53:30
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 29, 2004, at 15:02:19
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 15:53:30
> Youch. My bad. I said that (to Scott) because Scott said it bothered him personally. I certainly wasn't trying to invalidate anyone's feelings. If it felt like that to you, though, I apologize. Sincerely.
Sorry to leave you hanging. There's no hard feelings.
Lar
Posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
In reply to holey moley.., posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 13:32:10
I read some of the threads here about all this hullaballoo and, YIKES!!!
It appears to me that
a) some of the posters do not understand or fail to recognize that. like it or not, this IS Dr Bob's forum. That makes him KING BOBBY.
b) Dr Bob is trying very hard to make this whole support forum concept work.
c) Dr. Bob (remember, he is the King here) can put anything he pleases anywhere on any page of this site, because it IS his.
4) Lou, get a grip. Whatever your rare neurological condition is, I don't quite believe that you are unaware of the contentiousness of your behavior regarding Dr. Bob's choice of quotes and all the other matters you seem determined to debate, argue, complain, have clarified, or any other thing for which you repeatedly post ad nauseum. Look back on your postings as if they were posted by someone you do not know. You got carried away. If you keep it up, maybe you can get yourself blocked from the site. Wouldn't that just be a wonderful thing for you to bemoan? Then again, the other posters here may just decide to IGNORE you altogether. Again, something for you to be cranky about.
e) My opinions are just that: my opinions. I get to have them and keep them or change them as I please
AND SO DO YOU... EVERYONE.ahhhhhhhh... ok, I feel better now.
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 29, 2004, at 21:08:49
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2004, at 4:51:17
The legislator, if he be truly wise, will not begin by writing down laws that are good in the abstract, but will first look about to see whether the people for whom he intends them is capable of upholding them. ......
Again, the government in a large state has less vigour and swiftness than in a small one; the people have less affection for their chiefs, for their country and for each other--since they are, for the most part, strangers to each other. Uniform laws are not suitable for diverse provinces; yet diverse laws among people belonging to the same state breed weakness and confusion.The greatest good of all, which should be the aim of every system of legislation, may on investigation be reduced to two main objects--liberty and equality: liberty, because all dependence of individuals on other individuals is so much force taken away from the body of the state; equality, because without it liberty cannot exist.
Jean Jaques Rousseau
The Social Contract
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 21:19:55
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
justplain jane,
You wrote,[...this is Dr. Bob's forum...]
I do recognise that
You wrote,[...ahhhhhhh...ok,I feel better now....]
I am glad that you feel better after reading all of the posts in question that you said that you read and reached a better feeling.
Someone said it, "All's well that ends well."
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on September 29, 2004, at 22:10:59
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
this too, shall pass....there will be another hullalaboo before you can count to 10...it's essential to the ownership of the board.........
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 22:39:52
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
jpl,
You wrote,[...Lou, get a grip...].
I'm sorry, but I am not fimiliar with this terminology...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 22:46:44
In reply to Lou's reply to jpj-2, » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 22:39:52
jpj,
You wrote,[...then again, other posters ...may...decide to IGNORE you...].
I believe that evryone has a choice to read or not read what anyone posts here. But could you tell me why the word (ignore) is capitalized? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on September 29, 2004, at 22:50:28
In reply to Lou's reply to just plain jane » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 21:19:55
> > Someone said it, "All's well that ends well."
Lou,
I love Shakespeare, and that is such a simple and yet profound quote.gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 22:55:43
In reply to Love that quote » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on September 29, 2004, at 22:50:28
gg,
Do you know the play?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 23:03:32
In reply to Love that quote » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on September 29, 2004, at 22:50:28
gg,
If you would like to discuss this, perhaps you could redirect this to social?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on September 29, 2004, at 23:32:18
In reply to Re: Love that quote » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 23:03:32
Good thinking Lou. Here is a link to my reply. I will be signing off soon for the night, though. So perhaps we can pick this up at a later time?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040923/msgs/397089.html
Warmly,
gg
Posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:43:59
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
i like your attitude, jane! glad you feel better.:) i've looked back over some of these posts..people sure are making a huge deal out of this..i don't think it'll be too hard to keep it down to 3 consecutive posts..this is not some big tragedy..and we are allowed to still respond to posts in a consecutive manner, which is a great aspect of the rule that makes good sense..so, i mean, if this person refuses to change his posting behavior, and it has a negative impact on the forum and its utility, then i am in favor of the rule, as it seems necessary..although i might up it to 4 consecutive posts, instead of 3..yes, this might negatively impact 1 or 2 people maybe, but it seems that not having the rule will negatively impact many more people, due to people's questions not getting answered due to high turnover, for instance..
take care,:)
amy
Posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:53:53
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!!, posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:43:59
i do think an attempt to resolve this issue with the poster first without adding a rule would be a good idea. but this attempt was probably already made, i'm guessing..
Posted by TofuEmmy on September 30, 2004, at 0:10:22
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
Re: point #4. Um....ok...um....OK, Ill count to 10 first. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10,
Um......Ok, Bob, I'll rephrase that. Um...OK, I'll be civil!! Oh my dog, that man is in my head!! HELP!I give up.
emmy
Posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 0:36:54
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!!, posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:53:53
perhaps instead of blocking people, when someone surpasses a certain amount of posts (3 or 4), accidentally or otherwise, dr. bob, you could just post "redirect: surpassed the posting limit" and just redirect the post to a new board specifically for excess consecutive posts (i'm not sure what you would call it). this way, it serves the same purpose, but no one has to fear being blocked or whatever...what do you think, dr. bob? i don't know..just a suggestion..i will support whatever decision you make on this issue..i think this idea might even be easier to implement, maybe
amy:)
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 1:28:23
In reply to Lou's reply to jpj-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 22:46:44
Lou,
it is capitalized because the word, in the context of my thoughts, bore a major emphasis in my mind. i held down the Shift key when I typed it. Therefore, it was capitalized.
No response is required, Lou, though you are free to do so if you please.
jpj
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:06:24
In reply to i have a great idea! -- dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 0:36:54
alesta,
You wrote,[...redirect surpassed the posting limit...].
I think that is a great idea, alesta. I think that you are indicating that there is no harm donr by posting more then 3 posts, and that any blocking for such would,IYO, not be warrented. Instead, you offer your alternitve.
I like your suggeation to the administration here, and wholeheartedly support your ideas.
I do not think that another board would be appropriate, but it is your thought that 4 posts vs 3 posts or 7 posts, I guess, is not something that should carry some sort of penalty here to.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:25:08
In reply to i have a great idea! -- dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 0:36:54
alesta,
I like your idea to not block posters for 4 or more posts, but to redirect to some unknown board might not be the best solution, although it is your thought that counts to me here.
How about the following instead.
Suppose when a poster goes over 3 posts, the moderator write, "3-hour halt".
This would mean that for the next 3 hours, the poster in question could not post at all on any board. Any thoughts?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:36:36
In reply to capitalization of ignore » Lou Pilder, posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 1:28:23
jpj,
Thank you for your explanation. What I want to rule out here is that there is the potential for some people to think that the putting of a word in capitals could have the potential to mean that there is a call to others to do what the word in capitals imports. In this case, the word is, "ignore".
Thank you for clearing that up that that is not what your intention was, but perhaps you were trying to {tell me} that there is the potential for people to ignore me on their own, {not that you are advocating that peope do that.}
Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
In reply to capitalization of ignore » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:36:36
There are no rules here that are consistently and equally enforced so why bother trying? If you break one of Hsuing's suggestions say you're sorry and the rule won't be enforced except when it is enforced which is a random event not influenced by your behaviour just Hsuing's whims. No problem!
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.