![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 8:45:35
and more than likely will regret it.
Oh, I wasn’t going to go there, but after a few days of mulling it over and realizing I’m part of this community also, I’ve decided to weight in.
Truthfully, I don’t have strong feelings about the three post rule other than I do not want to see a return of the taking apart of posts word by word, phrase by phrase, and sentence by sentence over multiple posts for clarification. I did not care for this in the past and I’m sure I would not like it any better if it returned.
I understand folks process information in different ways. I’m saying I feel annoyed and put down when the implication seems to be I need to explain myself over and over. Granted, sometimes what I’m posting isn't clear and I don’t mind occasionally being asked what I meant but as a consistent behavior, I do not like it. It makes me feel as if I’m stupid.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 9:17:54
In reply to Jumping in---, posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 8:45:35
Friends,
After reading Glydin's post, I fel that the poster
A.does not have strong feelings about the 3 consecutive posts.
B. That for clarification purposes, the poster would not like words or phrases from the poster's post taken apart over multiple posts.
I think that could be an aspect to be separate from the 3 consecutive post rule here?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 10:48:04
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Glydin's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 9:17:54
> I think that could be an aspect to be separate from the 3 consecutive post rule here?
> Lou
For what I recall, that was one of the big reasons for the 3 post rule. I could be wrong in my recollection.Maybe to you, it could be a separate issue, but for me, it was not. No, it doesn't necessarily stop the behavior - nor do I assume it should just because *I* don't like it - but it does and did stop it from filling the entire page with one person's additions to threads over and over and over.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 11:00:48
In reply to Re:Glydin's response to aspects of Lou's post, posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 10:48:04
Glydin,
You wrote,[...I could be wrong...]
Could you check so that if you are wrong that you could write a correction?
You wrote,[... nor do I assume it should just because I don't like it...one person's additions to threads over and over...]
Could you clarify what you mean by the above?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 11:05:38
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 11:00:48
> Could you clarify what you mean by the above?No, I cannot make that any plainer than what I posted originally and No, I do not beleive my recollection is incorrect so there is no need for me to correct that. I remember very well now being in on the original discussion. Maybe you could search your memory also?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 11:10:46
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post » Glydin, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 11:00:48
> Glydin,
> You wrote,[...I could be wrong...]
> Could you check so that if you are wrong that you could write a correction?
> You wrote,[... nor do I assume it should just because I don't like it...one person's additions to threads over and over...]
> Could you clarify what you mean by the above?
> LouGlydin,
In what you wrote,[...one person's additions to threads over and over...], could you clarify what you mean by;
A over and over?
B threads? In this , can you clarify the use of plural vs just one thread? I think that I would need to have further dialog with you to have a clearer understanding of this.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 11:19:00
In reply to Lou, posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 11:05:38
Glydin,
My post was being posted before I saw you post, so they crossed before I saw your post.
You wrote,[...maybe you can search your memory...?]
I think that haveing to search a memory, under the aspect of this discussion, could be better handled by email, if you would like, or babblemail because I think that type of discussion could be between just us.
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 16, 2006, at 16:12:24
In reply to Re:Glydin's response to aspects of Lou's post, posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 10:48:04
> For what I recall, that was one of the big reasons for the 3 post rule...
> but it does and did stop it from filling the entire page with one person's additions to threads over and over and over.
...And having the board turning over and over and over, not allowing people's posts from remaining visible for any length of time. Conceivably, one person could use unlimited posting as a denial-of-service attack on this site. Unlimited consecutive posting is disruptive and detracts from the continuity of interaction among multiple individuals.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:40:53
In reply to Re:Glydin's response to aspects of Lou's post, posted by SLS on August 16, 2006, at 16:12:24
Friends,
It is written that unlimited consecutive posting is disruptive...distracts...]
I have examined this argument and find that consecutive posts result from others not posting, not that the poster, including myself, posted consecutive posts by telling others that they can not post.
Members of this forum can post at any time in a thread. As far as the unlimited aspect, I agree that if no one ever posted in the thread, that could happen. But Dinah has said that she will post in my threads.
And then there is the aspect that people do not have to read my posts. With 1000s of posters here and many boards, could those that do not want to participate in a thread that has more than 3 consecutive posts go elseware?
But let us look at this situation from my perspective.
First, it is a fact that the content of the threads of mine have not been the subject. Nor has there ever been an alligation that the content was not supportive in its end result. In fact, many have appreciated the content of those threads.
Today, I received an email from someone that said they found me on Psycho Babble. They said that I could save their life and that they now want to Overcome the addiction from BZDs that they are in. They said that my posts were the encouragement that gave them the spark to overcome. I ask, is it a higher priority here that support be placed under as to if more than 3 consecutive posts can be seen?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:48:24
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:40:53
Friends,
If there is an argument here that consecutive posts could create a long thread and that is a reason to prohibit such, then are we to then prohibit the number of posts in a thread?
There is a thread of great length now about Effexor. Would it make any difference as to the argument put forth, as to if it mattered as to who posted consecutive posts?
Lou
Posted by SLS on August 16, 2006, at 17:51:21
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:40:53
Posting flux density is the problem - the number of posts per unit of time.
It might make sense to allow consecutive posts to be added to a thread on sequent days. One advantage to this would be that people could keep a daily journal describing their treatment experiences. This is something I am currently in the process of doing.
- Scott
Posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 18:28:40
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:40:53
> I ask, is it a higher priority here that support be placed under as to if more than 3 consecutive posts can be seen?
I think folks manage to give and receive alot of support while still adhering to the 3 post limitations. There is proof of this on the boards. So, I do not believe this restricts the ability to give and receive support.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 8:23:17
In reply to Support, posted by Glydin on August 16, 2006, at 18:28:40
Friends,
It is witten in the post in question,
[...adhereing to the 3 post limitation, folks manage to give and receive support...]
But I ask, if someone posted 4 consecutvce posts, in your opinion, would that cause someone to not give support or receive support? If so, could you post the rational for such and something from a mental helth journal that could substantiate such?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on August 18, 2006, at 11:01:16
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 8:23:17
The lengths of posts are not limited just the number of consecutive, one directly after another. Folks can write very a long ONE post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 11:15:40
In reply to Support, posted by Glydin on August 18, 2006, at 11:01:16
Friends,
It is written here that one can post one long post.
But in your opinioin, {must} they write one long post? If so, could that reason from a mental health journal be found for this and the link posted here?
Lou
Posted by Glydin on August 18, 2006, at 13:45:37
In reply to Lou's response to Glydin's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2006, at 11:15:40
> But in your opinioin, {must} they write one long post?~~~ If they participate at this forum, they must in three or less in a row.
If so, could that reason from a mental health journal be found for this and the link posted here?
~~~ I have no idea what you are asking for.
Posted by Glydin on August 18, 2006, at 14:43:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Glydin's post, posted by Glydin on August 18, 2006, at 13:45:37
I view myself as a member of this community, my initial goal was to express my thoughts regarding in what circumstance I think the three post rule is helpful to my participation at this forum. I also posted further and I meant what further additions I posted.
I have already given more time and energy to this thread than I originally intended, therefore, I feel further expounding and adding to what appears to building of an upside down pyramid, would be an effort in futility for me.
Thanks for allowing my thoughts on this matter to be posted on this board and allowing me to give a “voice” to them.
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.