![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 18:14:52
r. Hsiung,
Ther is a series of 5 consecutive posts . If the way that the 5 posts are done that makes them acceptable, could you point out the way that does this?
Lou Pilder
The first post in the series of 5:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050202/msgs/453035.html
Posted by Angielala on February 4, 2005, at 18:14:52
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-5consec, posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 13:41:07
Let sleeping dogs lie.
> r. Hsiung,
> Ther is a series of 5 consecutive posts . If the way that the 5 posts are done that makes them acceptable, could you point out the way that does this?
> Lou Pilder
> The first post in the series of 5:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050202/msgs/453035.html
Posted by gardenergirl on February 4, 2005, at 18:14:52
In reply to Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-5consec, posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 13:41:07
Lou, Trucker's posts are in reply to five different posts. It is my understanding that this is acceptable under the new 3 post rule.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 18:14:52
In reply to Re: Lou's request to DR. Hsiung-5consec » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on February 4, 2005, at 17:10:24
gg,
You wrote,[...in reply to 5 different posts...]
Hummm. There is not the box checked that indicates who the post was a response or reply to so you read the posts to find that out. This goes back to the development of the 3-consecutive post rule here, and I am requesting that Dr. Hsiung write a determination as to if one needs to check the box of the poster that one is responding to, then, in order to be in accordance with the rule.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 18:14:52
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-chthbx » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 17:56:44
Since I'm on a roll?
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 18:14:52
In reply to Shall I move this one too? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 17:58:50
Dinah,
You wrote,[...should I ...since I'm on a roll?...].
Yes. How long have you been rolling?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 18:16:12
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-onarol » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 18:07:32
Over a period of a bit more than half an hour.
I guess that makes a rather short roll, but it's two of two. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on February 4, 2005, at 21:48:30
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-chthbx » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 17:56:44
> gg,
> You wrote,[...in reply to 5 different posts...]
> Hummm. There is not the box checked that indicates who the post was a response or reply to so you read the posts to find that out.Yes, I had to look at the post subject and poster at the top of each message to identify which post trucker was responding to. I didn't actually have to read them, I just looked at the subject lines. I am not aware of the need to check the in reply to box in relation to the 3 post rule, but I may have overlooked that aspect of it.
Nice to see and feel the sun today, eh?
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 23:44:17
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-chthbx » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on February 4, 2005, at 17:56:44
> I am requesting that Dr. Hsiung write a determination as to if one needs to check the box of the poster that one is responding to, then, in order to be in accordance with the rule.
I don't think one should have to.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 7:25:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-chthbx, posted by gardenergirl on February 4, 2005, at 21:48:30
gg,
In thie case in question here, one clicks on each post in order to determine if the post is a response or reply to a different poster. Are you saying that one here then could post 100 consecutive posts by going back and forth between just two posters and posting so that one clicking on the posts would read that the post is in reply to a different poster after 3 consecutive posts?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2005, at 7:52:55
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-bkadfrth » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 7:25:25
I'm sorry Lou, I didn't follow that. Help, please?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 8:09:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-bkadfrth » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2005, at 7:52:55
gg,
You wrote,[...Help,please?...]
Suppose we are on the faith board and I am writing about what I have been revealed in relation to antichrist. Now there are other posters there besides me..let's say SLS and another poster.
So could I write 100 consecutive posts about what has been revealed to me about antichrist and click on two different poster's posts after 3 consecutive posts thearby if one examines the 100 consecutive posts they will discover that after 3 consecutive posts "in reply to" one poster,let's say SLS, I then click on the other poster's post and in the examinaton it says "in reply to XXX" which is a diffenet poster than SLS. Would that be doing what was done in the thread in question with "trucker"?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2005, at 8:13:04
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-atmptoexpln » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 8:09:28
Well, I suppose technically it might be considered to be the same. But I think it would violate the spirit of the rule.
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 5, 2005, at 8:30:02
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-atmptoexpln » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 8:09:28
If I understand the rule correctly, there would have to be 34 other posters in the thread for you to be able post 100 consecutive posts.. 3 for each reply by a poster.. that would take you to 102 posts.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 8:30:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-atmptoexpln » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2005, at 8:13:04
gg,
You wrote,[...the spirit of the rule...]
Could you write what is in your opinion to be the spirit of the rule?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 8:37:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardenergirl-atmptoexpln » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 5, 2005, at 8:30:02
It has been written that 34 posters would have to be in the thread to get over 100 consecutive posts. But could not there be just two others so that one could post 3 to one of the posters, then 3 to the other, then back to the first poster with 3 and then back to the second poster with 3 and so forth?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 5, 2005, at 9:35:47
In reply to Lou's response toan aspect this discussion-2enuf?, posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 8:37:45
Thats not my understanding Lou.. Though if we break it down to the tiniest technicality then I guess it might be right.. I can't see that argument standing up though really.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2005, at 21:37:16
In reply to Lou's reply to gardenergirl-sprtofrul » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2005, at 8:30:43
Well, I think the rule came about to discourage or I guess prevent someone from posting one post after another after another... rather I think the threads are intended to be more like a dialog. But I am going out on a limb here. I think Dr. Bob could better answer that.
But what you suggested seems to me to be a clever way to try to get around the rule. That is the part that seems to me to violate the spirit.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2005, at 7:43:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response toan aspect this discussion-2enuf? » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 5, 2005, at 9:35:47
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[...I can't see that argument standing up though really...].
Let us back up to trucker's posts. I do not see any signal from trucker that the 5 consecutive posts were from different people unless I shifted to the posts by clicking to read who the posts were comming from.
Now since the internet is sometimes referred to as the highway of infomation, could you tell me in your opinion how Dr. Hsiung's rationals for having the 3 consecutive post rule could make the highway better to travel on in light that trucker was transporting his messages to more than one recipiant? Would not the deliverance of the messages be to have more priority than the load to the board? Could you tell me in your opinion why 5 posts to 2 destinations could be better than 5 posts to one destination and why one would have to put on the brakes here and wait for someone else to post so that we could travel on?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 6, 2005, at 8:31:05
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2-the argmnt » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2005, at 7:43:33
OK,
Say a posted a thread, and b reaplied. c came along and posted two answers to a, and then 3 answers to b.
I see that as very very different to c posting 3 messages to a, and then 3 to b, and then 3 to c, and then 3 to a.
The way *I* understand it, is that c can reply to each post 3 times. That makes a total of 6 posts that c can make.If c were to post 3 times to a, and then 3 to b, and then 3 more to a, and then more to c etc etc then they are breaking the rule as I understand it.
I can't explain any clearer I'm afraid, my brain power is all used up while working.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2005, at 9:10:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2-the argmnt » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on February 6, 2005, at 8:31:05
NIkkiT2,
You wrote,[...If c were to post 3 times to a, and then 3 to b, and then 3 more to a, and then more to c etc etc then they are breaking the rule as I understand it...]
Let's say that the rule is being broken by your understanding. Could you explaine what possible harm there could be because someone posted to these 2 people in the sequence that you have described?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 6, 2005, at 10:04:45
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2-the argmnt-sqnce » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2005, at 9:10:16
I don't know how it oculd harm anyone per se.
But I know it can make people angry, and cause the thread to get too confusing and other peoples posts can get lost in that. Also it can make the boards roll over faster.
I was just pointing out how I believed that your suggested situation could be breaking the rules, that was all.
Nikki
This is the end of the 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.