![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 241 to 265 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 10:25:21
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 10:08:59
>it might be easier for others if they didn't need to read as many successive clarifications. If they have questions, they can ask, and then you can clarify more interactively...
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Okely dokely.
Might stop the head circles too, I suppose...
Posted by Lou PIlder on August 13, 2006, at 7:22:50
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:47:45
Dinah,
You wrote,[...don't like this rule...revocation...].
Thank you for posting such, for I it is refreshing to know that I am not the lone dissenter.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 8:41:16
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 10:08:59
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...it {might} be easier for others if they didn't need to read as many sucessive clarifications...they can ask...].
But do you approve of someone posting a post after 3 posts, automatically, without asking a question,as Dinah has written, just so that 4 consecutive posts do not appear? If so,then someone did not ask for clarification, but just posted in order for me to continue, right?
If it might be easier, could it also be that it might {not} make it any easier for others to read ? And are the goals of the forum to make all things {easier}? Would not support and education be a higher priority?
For instance, I posted a series about the use of profanity. The end result contributed to the support of the forum and even one poster wrote something like that they appreciated that series about how profanity was not protected in the concept of {freedom of speech}. There was , at least, one other series that another commented on that they appreciated the education that arrouse out of the series.
And on the same point here, when more than three consecutive posts appear, it is not that the poster is writing that he/she is requiering that others not post, right?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 9:43:24
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 8:41:16
The series that I was referring to as to that someone thought that it was good was about Jean Jacques Rousseau, not the one on profanity although I do remember someone thanking me for that one also. There were many other series that I did receive thanks for that someone thought that it was interesting, so it is hard for me to go back to all of those and remember as to each one. But I do remmber the series about Rousseau and there was also one about Mark Medford's poem that resulted in support and education.
Sorry to not remember all of them,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 6:48:30
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:44:25
Dr. Hsiung and his deputies,
Would I be permitted here to have dialog with you to discuss why others are allowed to post 4 consecutive posts here without sanction, while I have been told that I could not have permission to do so?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 6:51:25
In reply to Lou's request to admin for dialog about this rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 6:48:30
Friends,
Ahead of time, it looks like I have posted 4 consecutive posts. But one is a correction and has been already determined to not count in this rule.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 18:52:24
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:44:25
I haven't read all the posts on this subject because I would be here FOREVER, but I wanted to throw in my two cents. I've never understood the reasoning behind this rule. It just seems completely unecessary to me. Granted, I haven't experienced an abuse of it in any way, and obviously someone else feels they have. So this is just my humble opinion which you can take for what its worth. I feel this rule would cause unecessary grief. I for one have posted more than three times in a row for various reasons. If we want to get really technical about this, why don't we also ban posts that are not deemed interesting enough. This seems like the same thing to me. I vote against it (even though my vote may not be worth anything).
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 19:43:33
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 18:52:24
TC,
You wrote,[...I never undertood the reasoning behind the rule..unecessary...rule would cause..grief...I have posted more thn 3..why not ban posts that are uninteresting..I vote against..].
You have brought up many essential points involving this rule made here. First, you say do not understand the reasoning behind this rule...]
The reasoning given for the rule is posted here. I think that one reason, of several, is that the maker of the rule writes that some others, perhaps new members, could feel better to post if they did not see more than 3 consecutive posts on the board, is it not? But more than 3 consecutive posts are visible in all the exceptions, which keep comming such as diaries, posting to more than one person, posting in two different days, posting so that you run into another thread that has the first post as your name, administrative allowance, posting corrections that do not count, and maybe some more exceptions that could come up.
So IMO, if the rule is to not allow more than 3 posts to be seen that have the same poster's name, then we have to look at all the facts about what is behind the rule, do we not?
Then can you find this rule in another forum? If so, could you email the web address?
Then could we not seek to determine if the rule was targeted to one individual or not? And could that individual be me? What does the record show? And if so, why me?
Then there is as to what causes consecutive posts. Does the poster of such cause or create them? I think that since I am not saying that others can not post, that the consecutive posts occur because others do not post, not that I create those posts by my telling others that they can not post....
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 18:52:24
TC,
In examining all what is behind this rule, I have not yet posted what I think is plainly visible as to why this rule was made here. Tyhis could be so shocking that I have waited to this time to post what is plainly visible.
You see, first, it is a well-known fact here that I have a rare neurological affliction that impairs my spelling and writing. This is all connected to my hearing, like Ludwig von Beethoven. It is all related to music and math and can cause me to not remember some time and to have sensual problems that could cause me to not remember rules that are arbitrary, caprecious or discriminatory, also, because I repress those rules because of the great pain they cause me by my thinking that the rule was made to me, for I have felt the lash of discrimination and that sensitivity is plainly visible. So the more rules to me, the more likely I will not remember them all and stumble and be expelled for a year. And if I am subjected to extreme humiliation, such as mocking or riducule, or being bullied or ganged up on, or being subjected to antisemitic defamation as being a Jew, I can not rememeber all the rules to me even more so and fall into posting more than 3 consecutive posts, eventually....
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:07:26
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
Okay, I was just about to write a post that said "huh?" But I think I get you now. Have you ever revealed this 'neurological affliction' here before? It makes you make a lot more sense, if that makes any sense.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:09:51
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
You know, I totally understand why ALOT of people here would post compulsively. I know I have when upset. Why is that wrong. Isn't this place to help people with their afflictions?
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:12:28
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
>In examining all what is behind this rule, I have not yet posted what I think is plainly visible as to why this rule was made here. Tyhis could be so shocking that I have waited to this time to post what is plainly visible.
Are you saying you think you are the reason for this rule??-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:14:37
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 18:52:24
TC,
The aspect of that statemets here that could arrouse antisemitic feelings or accuse the Jews of killing Christ have a great effect on my being a member here and cause me great sorrow when Dr. Hsiung has allowed them to stay on the forum without sanction as I would be sanctioned.
And is this not two standards? Are two standards civil or supportive? I am not allowed to post those URLs of the quotes and statements by the nature of the new rule that was made right before I re- entered the forum. But many have emailed me for them and one email to me today expresses that I am correct here. But now I have to stop. You see, I can not post now like others and have to stop. But will I be allowed to continue? There is much more if someone posts. Dinah said that she would post in any of my threads to allow me to continue.
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:19:32
In reply to Lou's rsponse to TexasChick's post » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:14:37
... my statement above was supposed to lighten the mood, but I now see it could be viewed as a taunt to the people who are for the 3 post rule. So I truly apologize for that. You all know me. I tend to say stupid things when trying to be funny. I don't ever intentionally insult someone, so it doesn't always occur to me that my words could be taken wrong.
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:21:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:09:51
TC,
I se how you could think that I want to post compulsivly. But what I mean is that I can not post long posts. I have to stop in small pieces. I can not go to many pieces at once. I am disabled in that respect which is how I found this forum. But when I came here, you can serch the archives an see on your own, and make you own decision to your question to me , if I think the rule was constructed for me. That all can see in the archives. I will let you make your own decision.
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:25:23
In reply to Lou's rsponse to TexasChick's post » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:14:37
> TC,
> The aspect of that statemets here that could arrouse antisemitic feelings or accuse the Jews of killing Christ have a great effect on my being a member here and cause me great sorrow when Dr. Hsiung has allowed them to stay on the forum without sanction as I would be sanctioned.
> And is this not two standards? Are two standards civil or supportive? I am not allowed to post those URLs of the quotes and statements by the nature of the new rule that was made right before I re- entered the forum. But many have emailed me for them and one email to me today expresses that I am correct here. But now I have to stop. You see, I can not post now like others and have to stop. But will I be allowed to continue? There is much more if someone posts. Dinah said that she would post in any of my threads to allow me to continue.
> LouI'm still not clear on if you think the rule is because of you. Is that what you're saying? I'm just trying to understand.
As for the whole antisemic thing, I don't really understand where that's coming from. But I'm basically colorblind when it comes to race, so I REALLY don't understand the Jewish prejudice thing since yall don't look different. As far as I'm concerned, we all come down to the same origins, so what's the difference?
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:26:25
In reply to Uh, oh, third post, unless Lou get here first!!!, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:12:28
TC,
What you did could happen. But more so, some others think that the rule is 3 posts, not 4. This is seen in a blog and I am not the maker of it;
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:29:59
In reply to Re: Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:21:55
I think that means we're psychically connected somehow! Just kidding. I really have no urge to search the archives, I try to keep an open mind on most things and not make rash decisions. I decide for myself.
I guess what I'm trying to ask is if YOU think this rule applies to you. Not that its a big deal or anything, I was just trying to understand where you're coming from.
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:32:55
In reply to Second off..., posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:25:23
TC,
You wrote,[...I do not understand the antisemitic thing...]
One major issue is that there are posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that DR. Hsiung is unwilling to sanction. This could lead others to think that those state,ments are civil by the nature that they are being allowe to be posted without the poster told to be civil. Tic s then could give rise to others potentially thinking that in Dr. Hsiung's thinking, it is civl to post such. This then has the potential to defame Jews and me as a Jew onthe forum. The fact that Dr. Hsiung's rule prohibit the posting of what could put down those of other faiths could be seen as a rule that Jews are not protected by, by the nature of his unwillingness to apply his rules equally.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:34:55
In reply to We're crossing posts! » Lou Pilder, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:29:59
TC,
I am asking others to make their own determination from what is in thhe archives.
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:35:06
In reply to Re: Uh, oh, third post, unless Lou get here first!!! » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:26:25
I thought it meant no more than 3 posts! Just goes to show you, you never know how people are going to interpret the written word. We're in unexplored territory right now, eventually there will be many papers written on the Psychology of chat rooms. Until then we're on our own.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:37:56
In reply to So two posts and that's it???, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:35:06
I don't want to insult you, so forgive me in advance for my ignorance, but I just don't see how being Jewish is any different than being Italian or Catholic or something.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:39:55
In reply to Re: So two posts and that's it???, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:37:56
That was just some free flowing thought going on there.
-T
Posted by SLS on August 17, 2006, at 20:44:33
In reply to First off..., posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:19:32
> ... my statement above was supposed to lighten the mood, but I now see it could be viewed as a taunt to the people who are for the 3 post rule. So I truly apologize for that. You all know me. I tend to say stupid things when trying to be funny. I don't ever intentionally insult someone, so it doesn't always occur to me that my words could be taken wrong.
The issue regarding the limiting of consecutive posting was contentious and drew heated debate. I believe that it was after much deliberation and with much reluctance that Dr. Bob decided to implement a 3 consecutive post limit. For the most part, repetitive consecutive posting has not been a problem, and the need for a limit is not normally apparant. However, I think certain historic posting behaviors demonstrated a need for a change in posting policy. It is not important who was responsible for these behaviors. Once the need for change was demonstrated, it no longer mattered.
- Scott
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:47:52
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChic's post » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 19:43:33
> You have brought up many essential points involving this rule made here. First, you say do not understand the reasoning behind this rule...]
> Then could we not seek to determine if the rule was targeted to one individual or not? And could that individual be me? What does the record show? And if so, why me?
I just reread this post and got some of what you were saying. You said brought up many essential points involving this rule made here, I didn't catch that the first time. People, like me, tend to scan over posts quickly. And frankly, I'm REALLY tired after a hard day at work, and have had three screwdrivers. So I may miss things here and there.
-T
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.