![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 7:27:00
Friends,
There are exceptions to the 3 consecutive post rule. If there is dialog with different people, then the consecutiveness is only if the consecutive posts are to the same person in dialog in the thread. Concievably, ther could be 10 consecutive posts when someone is responding to 10 people in the thread. In the thread above, I am in dialog with two people so the consecutive posts do not count.
I agree with this exception
Thaks for reading
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 7:50:19
In reply to Lou explains the exceptions to the 3 rule, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 7:27:00
Friends,
There is also some aspect in the rule that could mean that the consecutive posts would have to be in the same day. I agree with that concept if it is in the spirit of the rule, for the goal of the rule seems to imply that.
I am not against any rule as long as it is well-defined and applied equally.
My concern here is that I would like to have dialog with Dr. Hsiung and his deputies about the aspect that I think that dialog is necessarry to clear up that it could be seen that the rule is not apllied equally , for there are on the board posters posting 4 consecutive posts and those posters are not being told that they are uncivil for doing so, yet I have requested to be allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts and my requests have been denied.
Being that this is the administrative board to discuss the rules in general, then the rule itself,IMO, is not applicable on this board, for the administrative board is not for support and education, but to discuss the administration of the site.
I do not feel comfortable with this rule because I see,IMO, that it is not being applied equally, but as to the other rule, I can not post the URLs of the posts that are being allowed with 4 consecutive posts to show that here.
This leads me to feel discriminated upon, and I am asking for dialog with the adminstration to clear this up now so that there is a proper undestanding about a rule that is being developed, which goes to the part of a rule being "well-defined" and "applied equally."
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 8:22:46
In reply to Re: Lou explains the exceptions to the 3 rule, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 7:50:19
Friends,
The importance to me here about this rule is to determine if the rule is antisemitic.
This depends on what your understanding of antisemitism is.
If a rule is made that is designed to entrap Jews, then would it be antisemitic? If a rule is made that is applied only to Jews, then would it be antisemitic? If a rule is made to cause Jews to have a higher statndard of obsevance than non-Jews, then would it be antisemitic?
If the rule is vague or overly broad, so that it can be applied in a discriminatory manner, and used to entrap a Jewish person, then would it not be antisemitic? If the rule is made to keep Jews from participating, then would it be antisemitic?
Being that I am in a continual attempt to have statements here that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings that are left unsanctioned, to be sanctioned, there could be thought by some that rules that are made here that have the potential to have me expelled from the forum, while others are not held to that same rule, could be determined by someone outside of this forum to be antisemitic. If you would like to see those posts, you could email me at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 9:44:44
In reply to Lou explains the exceptions to the 3 rule, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 7:27:00
I only have one strong feeling about the 3 post rules--
WHAT ARE THE RULES?
Can someone (ideally a person of some authority) just write out the guidelines and post them? A suggestion for the subject line:
Psycho-Babble Rules and Guidelines UPDATE
That way one does not have to follow the minutae of every dialog that passes through these vanilla screens. And often I'm not sure when/if consensus is reached. And sometimes Dr. Bob is cryptic, and I can't tell what he's trying to demonstrate, or how the links to various posts support his arguments. And sometimes the rules change, but the subject line reads something like "Why is personX blocked?"-- which is very frustrating.
I'm not a lawyer, and my memory is poor. I would like to have a source to consult, regarding things like 3-post rules, what is considered obscene language, and what constitutes a "trigger". I don't think these things are so very complicated that they cannot be listed in a Psycho-Babble Constitution of sorts. That way when disputes arise, we can refer to an actual rule, rather than a rumor that such a rule exists.
Thanks Dr. Bob and Deputies & also Lou for bringing up this topic
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:03:52
In reply to 3-post Rools, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 9:44:44
ll,
You wrote,[...thanks...Lou for bringing up this topic...]
I appreciate your concern here and tour willingness to think about other things here to bring up on the administrative forum.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:41:53
In reply to 3-post Rools, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 9:44:44
ll,
You wrote,[...WHAT ARE THE RULES?..]
Untill it is in th FAQ, there are many parts given to the rule in different places.
There are many exceptions, one being a diary. Another is that a correction is not counted. Another is that consecutive posts are only to the same person.
This means that you could have 25 consecutive posts if your posts are directed to others so that 4 do not go consecutivly to one of those posters . So if you are having dialog in a thread with , lets say 5 people, you could have more than 3 consecutive posts as long as they are not to the same person.
I think that what the rule is designed for as stated, could benifit from more clarification and I am glad that you also write that you are not knowing what the rule is by the nature of you writing,[..WHAT ARE THE RULES?..]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:53:58
In reply to 3-post Rools, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 9:44:44
ll
You wrote,[...I would like to have a source to consult (about the rule)...]
In the 3 consecutive posts rule, I can understand your concern becuse it is in many posts.
One aspect from my view is that there was something I think about [...in the same day...]
So that could also be part of the rule. That would make sense, for the purpose stated for the rule is that time must be allowed for others to join in? If that is so, then if a day passes, there was allowed time for others to join in and they did not. Thearfore , since they were offered the time to join in and did not, then it goes to say that the poster has satified their obligation to wait and can proceed since they waited. If this was not the case, then the rule could be used to prevent someone from speaking, and that is not civil even by the rules here, for it is uncivil to tell someone that they can not post, unless it is to them in the do- not- post -to -me rule.
If you would like further clarification from my view, please ask.
Lou
Posted by Jost on August 16, 2006, at 11:43:07
In reply to Is the 3 consecutive -post rule antisemitic? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 8:22:46
Lou wrote:
>>>If a rule is made that is designed to entrap Jews, then would it be antisemitic?
>>>If a rule is made that is applied only to Jews, then would it be antisemitic?
>>>If a rule is made to cause Jews to have a higher statndard of obsevance than non-Jews, then would it be antisemitic?
>>>If the rule is vague or overly broad, so that it can be applied in a discriminatory manner, and used to entrap a Jewish person, then would it not be antisemitic?>>>If the rule is made to keep Jews from participating, then would it be antisemitic?
Lou, the answers to your questions are as follow:
1. " If a rule is made...to entrap Jews..." If the rule specifically is tailored to apply only or disproportionately to Jews, the answer could well be yes
2...".applied only to Jews" If the rule is applied only to Jews, the application of the rule could well be anti=semitic; however, the rule, as written, might not be anti-semitic-- in this instance, only the application might be
3. "to cause Jews to have a higher statndard of obsevance " I don't understand the idea here, so I can't give an opinion
4. "rule is vague or overly broad, so that it can be applied in a discriminatory manner, and used to entrap a Jewish person" As in Number 2, the rule itself may not be at all anti-semitic;
if it was used to entrap a person who HAPPENED to be Jewish,: the application might very well not be anti-semitic;
if used to entrap a person BECAUSE he was Jewish, the rule might have been used in an anti-semitic way (but one would want to investigate the exact reason for using the rule, to determine if the Jewishness of the person was the reason, or merely an accidental fact, unrelated to the rule's use)
5. rule "to keep Jews from participating" if the rule is written specifically to apply solely or disproportionately to Jews, yes
Jost
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 13:41:15
In reply to Re: Is the 3 consecutive -post rule antisemitic?, posted by Jost on August 16, 2006, at 11:43:07
Jost,
There is another aspect of this, and that is the concept of "pretext".
In your answers, I think that you meant that in some cases, an investigation for discovery would have to be made to see if the rule's reasons were a pretext to expell the poster by saying that the poster was uncivil, being that the rule was made ad hoc.
Now in the case in hand, to determine if the rule's reason(s) constitute a pretext to justify my expulsion from the forum, this needs to be explored.
In order to do this, we examine their reasons for the rule, see if the reasons are valid, see if the rule is being allowed to be broken by the other members, and see if there is a hostile environment created toward the poster in question before the rule was made to determine if the making of the rule was targeting that poster. You could also see if statements that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are left on the board unsanctioned even after I have requested for the administration to do so. You could also see if other members are allowed to post defamatory statements about me and not receive the same sanction as I. This is another aspect going to what is called "more harsh treatment"
Lou
I am not allowed to post any URLs here of other's posts, so if you would like a catalog of those that you can use to make your own determination, you could email me at
lpilder@1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 13:43:42
In reply to Lou's reply to Jost-prtxt » Jost, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 13:41:15
The correction to my email is;
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 13:59:30
In reply to Lou's respopnse to llrrrpp's post » llrrrpp, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:53:58
> ll
> You wrote,[...I would like to have a source to consult (about the rule)...]
> In the 3 consecutive posts rule, I can understand your concern becuse it is in many posts.
> One aspect from my view is that there was something I think about [...in the same day...]
> So that could also be part of the rule. That would make sense, for the purpose stated for the rule is that time must be allowed for others to join in? If that is so, then if a day passes, there was allowed time for others to join in and they did not. Thearfore , since they were offered the time to join in and did not, then it goes to say that the poster has satified their obligation to wait and can proceed since they waited. If this was not the case, then the rule could be used to prevent someone from speaking, and that is not civil even by the rules here, for it is uncivil to tell someone that they can not post, unless it is to them in the do- not- post -to -me rule.
> If you would like further clarification from my view, please ask.
> LouI think I understand your point, and I wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes I write something, and then it ferments in my mind and I wish to post an addendum. And what if I needed more addendums, and ended up having a long conversation with myself? that seems that it would be inviolation of the 3 post rule.
Yet, what if i posted to myself, asking myself for clarification, and then i responded to my clarification request?
What if I post to myself, telling me to be more civil, and to rephrase something. And then what if my rephrasal required clarification?
What if I am running around in circles biting my own tail? Surely babble can provide an opportunity for me to revise and resubmit my own opinions, given adequate clock time for other posters to interject?
-ll
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 14:04:00
In reply to Re: Is the 3 consecutive -post rule antisemitic?, posted by Jost on August 16, 2006, at 11:43:07
Jost,
In the aspect as to if the rule is a pretext for something else, we can look at one of the given reasons for the rule which says something like it would be easier for new members to post if the rule is incorporated in the FAQ.
Really? Let us look at this situation
A. If a new mwmber is not going to feel easy because he/she sees 4 consecutive posts, then how those posts happened would not be relevant, would it?
B. Since there are many exceptions made to the rule, then more than 3 consecutive posts can be seen, and the new poster ,unless they delved into trying to decifer the posts as either to the rule or not, IMO could be an unreasonable expectation for that new poster. How would they know how the 4 posts come to be seen? And if they knew that the exception, lets say of that a correction is not counted, could they not also think that the rule is a pretext for something else?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 14:27:59
In reply to lurps response 2 Lou's respopnse to llrrrpp's post » Lou Pilder, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 13:59:30
ll,
You wrote,[... I understand your point and agree wholheartedly...].
Does his make you feel better?
Lou
Posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 14:41:05
In reply to Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post » llrrrpp, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 14:27:59
Maybe it makes me feel better. Why do you ask?
-ll
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 14:49:46
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post » Lou Pilder, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 14:41:05
ll,
You wrote,[...maybe it does...]
Could you write back to me when you have made the decision that it either does or doesn't or something else?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:01:23
In reply to lurps response 2 Lou's respopnse to llrrrpp's post » Lou Pilder, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 13:59:30
ll,
You wrote,[..what if I needed to make more addendums...I would be violating the rule..]
This brings up as to if you think that the rule is contrdicting the forum's goal of support. For if you are threatened with being uncivil for asking for support, is this in your opinion, hypocrisy?
As a teacher, I had students put the homework problems on the chalkboard. What would you think if I told my students that they could not ask me in the course of the whole year more than 3 questions to find out how I thought as to if an answer was correct or not that was posted on the chalkboard and I told the student that in the 3 previous questions that my thinking was that the answer was correct?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:18:30
In reply to lurps response 2 Lou's respopnse to llrrrpp's post » Lou Pilder, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 13:59:30
ll,
We now have seen my example when I was a math teacher( I am retired).
But I had a friend that taught philosophy and what if he had his sudents give presentations in front of the class about differnt people's philosophy abour something.
And the students gave their presentation about the person's philosphy and the subject then for discussion for the next whole term was whether or not the person's philosophy was acceptable or not in relation to the thinking if him, as the teacher.
What would you think if the teacher said that anyone that asks more than 3 times for me to give what my thinking is as to if the philosopher's agenda was acceptable or not in his thinking, and that in 3 previous questions he said that he thought that it was acceptable in his thinking, that you would be expelled from the class? Would that be supportive?
Lou
Posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 16:34:58
In reply to Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post » llrrrpp, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 14:27:59
> ll,
> You wrote,[... I understand your point and agree wholheartedly...].
> Does his make you feel better?
> LouIt makes me feel better because I like to feel that i understand things. Also it makes me feel better because I don't want to trouble you to clarify your position on this particular issue.
It makes me feel not so good, because I worry that I may have just written something like that out of supportive "habit" and not out of sincerity. And that concerns me a lot.
Although to be fair, I reviewed my post, and I was sincere. I didn't understand many of your other posts, because I'm at work, and I'm distracted, and cannot devote my full attention. but this one i think I DID understand, and it was a relief to "get" your point.
Why do you ask?
-ll
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:53:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post » Lou Pilder, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 16:34:58
ll
You wrote,[...it makes me feel better...I was sincere...I DID understand...it was a relief to "get" your point...].
I ask because I now have a new question:
Would it have been just a same relief if more than 3 consecutive posts were made?
Lou
Posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 17:02:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post » llrrrpp, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:53:11
Yes, it would have been the same amount of relief.
However, if you had spelled out your argument with one word in every post, for abot 67 posts in a row, I probably would have gotten frustrated and given up before i achieved the sense of "I GET IT"
-ll
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 17:12:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post » Lou Pilder, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 17:02:05
ll,
You wrote,[...if you...one word in every post..would have forgotten and given up..]
I think that I would not do that.
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 16, 2006, at 17:18:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post » llrrrpp, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 17:12:19
> ll,
> You wrote,[...if you...one word in every post..would have forgotten and given up..]
> I think that I would not do that.Remember, Lou, this is not about you.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 19:35:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post, posted by SLS on August 16, 2006, at 17:18:06
SLS
Please do not post to me.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babblr/admin/20060802/msgs/677178.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 19:37:35
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post, posted by SLS on August 16, 2006, at 17:18:06
SLS,
Please do not post to me.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/677178.html
Posted by SLS on August 17, 2006, at 1:59:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to llrrrpp's post, posted by SLS on August 16, 2006, at 17:18:06
> > ll,
> > You wrote,[...if you...one word in every post..would have forgotten and given up..]
> > I think that I would not do that.
>
> Remember, Lou, this is not about you.I thought it was important to note that these rules are not formulated for the expressed purpose of limiting the participation of any one individual, regardless of the history or manner in which their desirability was demonstrated.
- Scott
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.