![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 100 to 124 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 15:39:02
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 12:53:03
Hi Mel.
We are both so persistent. :-)
> I'll answer you so you can be freed for three more. Although I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)
It is perhaps unfortunate that people have already recognized a way around the new posting system to be able abuse it. I will call it tag-team posting. I hope it does not become an issue.
> > > > How many people here have commited murder?
> > > I think this is a bad example.
> > I would have chosen tax-evasion, but I feared it would have included too many people to make my point.
> Well, actually either one makes a different point. If only one person had ever committed murder or tax-evasion, there would be no need for a law, would there?I don't think God would repeal the Sixth Commandment were everyone to follow it.
> > > Murder does actually hurt another person. Multiple posts to admin hurt nobody.
> > I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.
> I would be more inclined to agree if the multiple posts were in the middle of a thread AND had nothing to do whatever with that thread. But in the case of one poster starting a thread and adding to it? I can't see a disruption.Please see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
> And I can't see how a rule with an arbitrary number that is also considered case-by-case (allowing for exceptions) could be enforced fairly.
I don't think we yet know how it will be implemented.
> > > > This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive.
> I didn't answer this one before, but it sounds like you are attempting to protect Lou from himself??Not at all. I am attempting to advocate for the protection of the community. You might be confusing me with another poster.
> > I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.
> I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.As you have mentioned before, however, protecting the individual from the majority is often of critical importance.
> > I don't want to have to leave this one. Unlimited consecutive posting could easily cause this to happen. I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me.
> Perhaps I don't see why it is personal to you.Please see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
> I (personally) see it more like the Patriot Act - where the rights of the few are trampled in the name of safety for the many.I think there will always be conflicts to be found between the desires of the individual and the interests of the majority (or state). Shouting "fire" in a movie theatre when there is none so as to incite a panic is one such example for which the health of the many takes precedence over the freedom of the individual to his speech. Doing so is against the law.
> "Trampled" here is the wrong word - too extreme,
Not so. That is precisely what happens to the people in the theatre.
> ps - it was nice having lots of time to reply, you being stuck at two and waiting for another post......
:-)
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 15:53:30
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 13:44:56
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.
>
> The "do not harass/pressure" rule has been in existence for a long time. The issue is how to more succinctly define it. "I know it when I see it" doesn't work for most people. I can state, without equivocation, that it does not work for me.I agree with you completely. Which is one of the reasons this rule bothers me. Dr. Bob himself has allowed that there might be exceptions. So I don't see where this defines it any better.
>
> In psychic terms, it's like someone yelling over other more genteel conversations taking place in a crowded room, demanding attention.That's an interesting analogy. And very appropriate in some ways.
> I feel diminished if my language is dissected and minutely examined via requests to clarify. If someone does not get my point, I am more than happy to rephrase or expand on my thoughts. That is a different sort of request, though, than being asked to justify the particular use of a word or phrase when ambiguity of meaning is a core characteristic of language itself.Certainly if a person wants to be sure that they understand you, saying what they don't quite understand can be quite friendlier - and more direct. And you are right that the thought process is what really needs to be understand, not the use of a particular word.
>
> I want a rule that helps me to feel protected, even if I never need to invoke it. It's a matter of consideration. There is no right answer. There are different answers. Unconstrained posting has been described by myself and others as problematic. You can consider my feelings, or not. I'm asking that you do. I'm asking you to consider the feelings of those who spoke of their distress, and who may have been silenced because their feelings are not being validated.Everyone's feelings are valid. In fact, I've been known to present opposite opinions in case someone out there would like to disagree with the majority but can't bring him/herself to be the first one to speak up.
> I'm asking for a guideline. I was accused of violating the pressure/harassment rule, when I do not feel that I did. I feel that other posters have crossed the line into pressure/harassment without receiving sanction. Where is that darn line, anyway? It isn't nowhere. I've met it. But I don't know where I'll meet it again, and that bothers me a great deal.
>Well, I didn't think you deserved the block either. And I think that ambiguous rules are nearly impossible to enforce evenly. I think it either needs to be rethought or there should be no exceptions. Otherwise, you are right. How will you know when you've crossed the line?
Peace?
Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 16:34:13
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 15:39:02
>
> 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??
> > I'll answer you so you can be freed for three more. Although I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)
>
> It is perhaps unfortunate that people have already recognized a way around the new posting system to be able abuse it. I will call it tag-team posting. I hope it does not become an issue.
>Well, I'm sure if it does, we can figure out another rule:)
Seriously - I don't expect it to be any more of an issue than multiple posting was. Or any less.
> I don't think God would repeal the Sixth Commandment were everyone to follow it.Maybe not, but would it have been written if nobody had done it? Why give people the idea?
> > > I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.
>
> > I would be more inclined to agree if the multiple posts were in the middle of a thread AND had nothing to do whatever with that thread. But in the case of one poster starting a thread and adding to it? I can't see a disruption.
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
>Point taken. I still like my idea of the site 'hiding' all but the first few and last few mesages on long threads. This would help even the cases where some get very long. This happens quite a bit now - with multiple posters - and doing this snuff a couple of birds with one chunk of a stone.
> > And I can't see how a rule with an arbitrary number that is also considered case-by-case (allowing for exceptions) could be enforced fairly.
>
> I don't think we yet know how it will be implemented.
>This is true.
> > > I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.
>
> > I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.
>
> As you have mentioned before, however, protecting the individual from the majority is often of critical importance.
>Touche! If it is something that really distresses you and it's not a minor pet peeve then you are right. Protecting your rights is just as important.
And I do believe I said protecting the *rights* of the minority, which *is* different than protecting the minority. It's a good thing to do, but different.
> > > I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me.
>
> > Perhaps I don't see why it is personal to you.
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
>Did I miss something? I can see where this shows what a screen full of the same thing would look like, but I can't see what makes it personal. Oh, well, I guess the why isn't that important anyway.
> > I (personally) see it more like the Patriot Act - where the rights of the few are trampled in the name of safety for the many.
>
> I think there will always be conflicts to be found between the desires of the individual and the interests of the majority (or state). Shouting "fire" in a movie theatre when there is none so as to incite a panic is one such example for which the health of the many takes precedence over the freedom of the individual to his speech.Again - big difference between "desires" and "rights." That's why the fire-in-the-theater one was settled at the Supreme Court level.
>
> > ps - it was nice having lots of time to reply, you being stuck at two and waiting for another post......
>
> :-)Gotcha.
Mel
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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>
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
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
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
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.
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.
> LouRosie,
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.