![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 174 to 198 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:11:30
In reply to Re: Hi Lou, Dinah here, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 10:19:02
Dinah,
You wrote,[...This can't be easy for you...].
Thank you for that observation about my feelings, for I think that you are saying that if you were in my situation, that it would not be easy for you.
Lou
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:22:29
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-~esy » Dinahmari, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:11:30
I have been in similar situations and found it immensely painful. I was lucky to have my therapist to talk to about it. I hope you have someone who you feel free talking to about Babble?
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:25:34
In reply to Hi Dinah, Lou here... » Dinahmari, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:58:59
if I don't leave for work. But I'll be back later today.
Keep your head held high, Lou. And know that there are those on this board who accept you just the way you are.
I'm one of them.
Posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 11:26:03
In reply to Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2 » alesta, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:25:08
hi, lou,:)you really are a congenial fellow!:) i think your idea of a 3-hour halt is fantastic. or some kind of warning instead of blocking first. maybe a warning would be the easiest to implement..this seems very reasonable and advantageous to all parties involved. and then if the poster posts after the warning, then he/she will be blocked. this way no one is caught off guard..a win-win situation.. why not? a warning (instead of a block) after 3 consecutive posts (or whenever bob sees the posts, so it could be more than 3 of course, just as it could if he were using a block first--same result). and if any further posts are made after the warning, then a block seems fair. what do you think? (thanks for bouncing your ideas off me lou--2 heads are better than one.:)) dr. bob, how about it? a warning instead of a block? i seriously doubt anyone is going to post after a warning, unless they are itching for a vacation..:)
or maybe your 3-hour halt is better, actually..love the idea!..whichever is easier for dr. bob to implement..what do you think dr. bob..sounds like an awesome solution!
lou, it was very nice to meeting you.:)
take care!
amy:)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:31:17
In reply to I'm going to be in deep trouble » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:25:34
Dinah,
You wrote,[...there are those here that accept you as you are...].
Thanks for writing that.
Lou
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
In reply to Re: Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2--dr. bob, lou » Lou Pilder, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 11:26:03
I proposed to Dr. Bob that he work something into the computer code so as to keep people from posting after so many posts a day. That would better suit his stated purpose of "sharing the boards" and protecting less frequent posters from being crowded out by more frequent posters. After all, posting three posts on every single thread on the board would be less "sharing" than just limiting people to two or three posts per day.
Plus if the computer just gives you a polite message that you have used up your daily allotment of posts, and asks you to please post again tomorrow, there is no stigma of a public reprimand that could be very damaging.
And for those of you who recognize yourselves as the sort of frequent posters who Dr. Bob would like to post less so as to allow others more space to share (I hadn't thought of the board as a limited resource, and thought it was nicer to be welcoming and give responses to people who start a thread, but apparently that isn't giving others a chance to help which is a bad thing), please realize that there are other boards that actually welcome frequent posters and give them honorary status from what I can see, based on posting frequency.
Psychcentral I believe *likes* frequent posters, so if anyone is offended that Dr. Bob thinks frequent posters crowd infrequent ones, there is always that option. Those who frequent Pyschcentral can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. I just passed by there once or twice.
Sadly I am wed to this place, and will remain here or nowhere. But if I weren't I'd be tempted to move. :)
OK, enough about me. Don't you think it would be a much less stigmatizing thing to have the computer automatically stop people from posting after a certain limit rather than having Dr. Bob tell us to shut up?
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:44
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
> ...If I am the poster with the posting style in question, then I do not think that my posting style is either disruptive or annoying...
>Lou, if you did think your posting style was either disruptive or annoying to others I would hope that you would not intentionally post in such a manner. Personally, I admit that sometimes your style gets in the way of me hearing your message. Toph
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:41:13
In reply to Re: I'm going to be in deep trouble » Dinahmari, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:31:17
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:41:42
In reply to Re: Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2--dr. bob, lou » Lou Pilder, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 11:26:03
alesta,
You wrote,[...I think your idea...is fantastic...].
Well, I think that we could also go further in my suggestion to include what is to happen if the poster posts befor the 3-hour halt is over.
I belive that any blocking in this situation to be inappropriate. If the rule that I am suggesting was considerd to have merit here, then I suggest that if the poster in question posts before the 3-hour halt is over, that the halt could be extended to 6 more hours.Then of course, if the poster posts before the 6-hour halt is over, then a 12-hour halt and so forth. The idea that I am trying to present here is that posting in a consecutive posting manner is not something that I consider to be disruptive or annoying and I would not like that to be considered to be such by associating it with things that carry with it a blocking, such as using profanity here.
Lou
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 11:46:50
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post-2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:11
> ..."i appreciate evrything you have to say. i enjoyed reading your posts... >
>Lou, I have appreciated some of the things you have said and have supported you on this board --on the other hand, I have not always appreciated the way that you have said it. Toph
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:57:02
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
your position, or misinterpreted it.
I am summarizing my understanding of what you have said.
Frequent posters "cramp" less frequent ones
A more equitable "sharing" of the board is desirable so as to encourage less frequent posters to post more.
It is a good thing to allow others to help, even if it means being less helpful yourself.
Less frequent posters may be intimidated by frequent posters, and the fact that frequent posters may often welcome them, answer their questions, or respond to threads with few responses does not offset this intimidation factor.
You believe the three post limit would help this situation more than, say, a daily limit.
Is it possible to have a computer enforced limit of some sort so as to avoid public humiliation of being told you talk too much? Honestly, that would probably also solve my problem of being afraid I'll harm myself mid meltdown because of an admin action. If it's possible under your computer writing code, wouldn't it be more compassionate?
I'm sorry if I inadvertantly broke the three post limit on this occasion. There are so many posts going on on this thread that I had trouble counting.
(BTW, Dr. Bob. Perhaps you can see some value in Lou's style of posting if you think about your own way of answering posts. People often think you forget to address certain aspects of their post, and admittedly it may be difficult to remember all parts of a question. If you addressed each part separately, it might be easier for you to remember to answer it all.)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 12:07:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Toph's post-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 11:46:50
Toph,
You wrote that[... there are some things that you appreciate that I have written and that there are some times that you have not always appreciated the way I have said it...].
But there are many people now writing that they appreciate my posting style. Could not those people have the opportunity to read what I am posting in my style? Are there not posts here that could have the potential for others to think that the 3-post rule is unwarrented?
Let us look at Dinah's post about this. She writes to me,"I think that your posting style is just fine. It doesn't bother me one whit." and, [...feel free to respond to my posts with as many posts as you like...], and [...This can't be easy for you. (((Lou))))...].
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/397223.html
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 12:16:03
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
I'm not sure what the best answer is.
This is just a visual:
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Anyone
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
- Scott
Posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2004, at 4:51:17
To All,
Here’s what bothers me the most about all of this. It’s actually not the rule itself or the fact that it is being discussed and debated. I always welcome all views and I am even open to changing mine as a result. What upsets me is that I believe this entire discussion and the advent of the 3-post limit started this time because of one specific poster and his posting style. No matter what anyone says, I cannot bring myself to believe that this is truly a general discussion. It feels like a witch hunt to me.
I do not argue that this discussion needed to be and something needs to be decided and implemented fairly. Some posters have done an excellent job of sticking to the issue at hand without using specific examples. For those that haven’t, I wonder if using one person as the constant example is unfair and could be hurtful. Lou is handling this with more grace and dignity than I know I could ever muster. I imagine I would have run into hiding for a very long time by this point.
Thanks for listening,
Laurie
Posted by TofuEmmy on September 30, 2004, at 12:38:48
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
A wonderful example of why I think you're swell. Kisses, emmy
Posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 12:44:07
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
hi, dinahmari,:)
thanks for sharing your ideas!:)
hmm..i just don't think such a broad approach would work. here are a couple examples as to why:
some people like to post only on weekends, for instance, or only a portion of the week. this daily posting limit would surely work to their disadvantage and be unfair.
also, some people do post a lot more but are helping a lot more people on the boards--we wouldn't want to prevent people from being helped
because posters aren't allowed to answer anymore questions due to a posting limit.and, third, i think this idea would prove to be very inconvenient and annoying to many, and a bit heavyhanded.
take care :),
amy
Posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 13:08:44
In reply to Lou's rsponse to alesta's idea-2--dr. bob, lou-ht » alesta, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 11:41:42
> alesta,
> You wrote,[...I think your idea...is fantastic...].
> Well, I think that we could also go further in my suggestion to include what is to happen if the poster posts befor the 3-hour halt is over.
> I belive that any blocking in this situation to be inappropriate. If the rule that I am suggesting was considerd to have merit here, then I suggest that if the poster in question posts before the 3-hour halt is over, that the halt could be extended to 6 more hours.Then of course, if the poster posts before the 6-hour halt is over, then a 12-hour halt and so forth. The idea that I am trying to present here is that posting in a consecutive posting manner is not something that I consider to be disruptive or annoying and I would not like that to be considered to be such by associating it with things that carry with it a blocking, such as using profanity here.
> Louhi lou,
i don't understand how what you're proposing will work. it looks like with your system a person can just keep on posting! while simply getting warnings of a halt each time that they need not obey..this achieves nothing. i still prefer my idea of a warning.<The idea that I am trying to present here is that posting in a consecutive posting manner is not something that I consider to be disruptive or annoying
but it is, lou. all the excessive unnecessary posting prevents certain posts from being addressed or read by people. i know i personally i would hate it if i posted a question that was important to me and it disappeared quickly from the board with few responses. this affects people and in some cases may hurt them, as they may have otherwise received some very significant, important piece of information to aid their well-being or health. i am usually very satisfied with the turnover on PB. i've never been dissappointed. but i know if someone started *unnecessarily* posting excessively in the manner that you have, it would probably frustrate me for the reasons stated above.
amy:)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 13:34:19
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
Thank you Laurie. It seems that all this finger pointing is an example of why we that we *have* civility rules in the first place.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 13:35:20
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 13:39:18
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
I'll step out on a limb here and say that if each person was to have a daily limit that this place would get pretty dead.
Another idea! <just kidding> instead of blocking for lack of civility, the daily limit can be reduced. Start with one post/day and each day of civility adds one more!
meanwhile I think I've just hit my 3
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:09:28
In reply to Re: Alternate proposals, and alternate choices, posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 12:16:03
I don't think either one is better, but I think if the idea is to keep any one person from posting over and over and over then I think the second one is better. Most people <I've never seen an example to the contrary> would just give up after about 6-8 tries and no response.
However if there is a response.....
In case nobody has noticed, this whole thing didn't get messy until others jumped in.
The first way it becomes a dialogue and can go on forever.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 14:09:45
In reply to Re: how we dicuss this, posted by All Done on September 30, 2004, at 12:20:36
All Done,
You wrote,[...Thanks for listening...].
I listened and you are welcome.
You wrote,[...No matter what anyone says, I cannot...believe that this is truly a general discussion. It feels like a witch hunt to me...].
There is a test to determine if something is a witch-hunt. Could you point out what you think is being done in this discussion that could qualify the discussion to be a witch-hunt? If we list those things, then we can see if your feelings are correct.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:11:56
In reply to Alternate proposals, and alternate choices » alesta, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 11:38:16
What if there is a person that really needs help right away. Three posts are a lot more likely to be ignored than 10. It seems too cruel to limit this person.
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 14:13:58
In reply to Lou's response to All Done-wtchnt » All Done, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 14:09:45
It sure seems that all pretense of this being 'hypothetical' has gone down the tubes.
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 14:20:44
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Toph's post-2 » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 12:07:30
Lou, I've said about as much as I'd like to say about the subject of unconventional posting styles. It seems to me that you are intelligent enough to know what you do, why you do it and what it does to many of those who encounter it. Again, I don't believe that I've ever objected to any of the content of your posts. Toph
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.