![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 32. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 9, 2008, at 7:56:04
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Dinah, posted by Lou PIlder on July 9, 2008, at 7:47:17
for myself, it was next to impossible to post or understand what was going on, when the entire page was filled with posts that wanted clarification/ of something that a poster said.
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2008, at 10:33:28
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Dinah, posted by SLS on July 9, 2008, at 6:27:35
I'm sorry, Scott. I didn't mean to minimize your contribution to the number. I'm sure it was well thought out. (Although Dr. Bob subsequently appeared to develop a strong attraction to the number 3.)
What I meant more was that there is no reason why three is an ok number and posting four is "bad" in the sense of not sharing the boards. It may be less frequent, but I see no reason that it should be outlawed.
For example, higher up on this page is an instance where Dr. Bob asked for ideas. And a poster responded in brainstorming fashion, posting more than three posts in the process. To me, this is a good thing. Other posters could have posted if they wished. It's not like the board registers as "busy" while a post is being made, and a thread is tied up so that others can't post. And in fact if no one else posts to a thread asking for ideas, it seems more likely to me that someone responding might spark ideas in someone else and stimulate a discussion rather than silence one.
On another board, posting frequency was unusually low. Someone started new threads in what to me was a not excessive way. The threads received responses. There was *plenty* of time for other people to post new threads. No one else happened to have anything new to say. But that didn't mean they didn't want to have conversations on the board. But the poster got a notice from Dr. Bob to please share the boards.
I don't understand that thought process at all. It seems to me that it's good for a board to remain active. The posts did get responses, and the board remained healthier and stronger, IMO, for maintaining ongoing dialogues.
It reminds me of my house sometimes. For example, I bought a very small container of ice cream in an unusual flavor that sounded interesting. I ate a small amount, since I don't particularly care for ice cream. I mentioned to my family that it was available. Over the course of the next week or two I noticed now and then it was there, took a small amount, until finally it was gone. (It tasted like freezer by then.) As I scooped out the last bit, my family seemed aggrieved that I hadn't shared. Ummmm... Well, it was there until it went bad. There was an open expressed invitation for them to eat it. How was I not sharing?
Admittedly, I was posting pretty frequently when that rule was enacted. And I felt pretty hurt by both the rule and Dr. Bob's comments on the rule at the time. So that may influence my continued feelings about it.
Posted by Phillipa on July 9, 2008, at 10:44:54
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2008, at 10:33:28
What about when a poster posts a number of posts on a thread thanking each poster individually for their contribution. Sometimes some post much more than three as it was a long thread? Phillipa
Posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
Let's not beat around the bush here. The 3 consecutive post rule was enacted at the urging of a few babblers to limit the number of consecutive posts by one or two particular posters. IMO It was not a rule designed for the good of the community as a whole. I am a bit concerned that we need to be so coddled, that we can't simply ignore posts that might potentially aggrevate us. I understand this is a board for crazy people (I say that with love), but just as we are asked to behave within certain guidelines, couldn't we also discipline ourselves to simply skip over posts that might annoy us. I think glaring subject lines like "PLEASE SHARE THE BOARD" have waaay more potential to create a negative atmosphere than does someone with a desire to articulate, posting prolifically. As always these are my opinions only. If I've made anyone feel bad or pissed off, I am truly sorry.
Peace Out
kid
Posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2008, at 14:19:44
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
I can certainly whip my scrolling finger in shape so that I won't accidentally injure myself if I have to scroll more than I currently do. Of course I'm prone to accidentally injuring myself, so I won't guarantee to be injury-free, but that's another issue. :)
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 9, 2008, at 15:17:22
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
> Let's not beat around the bush here. The 3 consecutive post rule was enacted at the urging of a few babblers to limit the number of consecutive posts by one or two particular posters. IMO It was not a rule designed for the good of the community as a whole. I am a bit concerned that we need to be so coddled, that we can't simply ignore posts that might potentially aggrevate us. I understand this is a board for crazy people (I say that with love), but just as we are asked to behave within certain guidelines, couldn't we also discipline ourselves to simply skip over posts that might annoy us. I think glaring subject lines like "PLEASE SHARE THE BOARD" have waaay more potential to create a negative atmosphere than does someone with a desire to articulate, posting prolifically. As always these are my opinions only. If I've made anyone feel bad or pissed off, I am truly sorry.
>
> Peace Out
> kidFriends,
The following link is to a post in a thread wher I used more than 3 consecutive posts.
I am asking that you click on the link and read the posts in the thread and then if you could reply to the following, I would appreciate it.
A. What was I able to have brought out in the poem?
B. How long, in number of posts by me, did it take for Mr. Hsiung and, I guess, others that were in the thread to see it?
C. Was anyone prohibited from posting because I posted more than 3 consecutive posts?
D. Could the Jewish community's representatives, if they receive this thread, commend me for my work on this forum?
E. In your opinions, is it easy to uncover some things such as what is depicted about the God that the Jews worship and give service to?
F. If it is not an easy task to point out the things that I pointed out in the thread in question, then in your opinion, what could be a purpose of the 3 consecutive post rule?
G. If someone is angry or such because I posted more than 3 consecutive posts here in the thread in question, what, in your opinions, could be a basis, or a foundation for their anger?
H. If there is a reason to make it uncivil to me to post more than 3 consecutive posts to bring out what I brought out in the thread in question about Judaism, that Mr. Hsiung did point out, why would that reason trump my efforts to have IMO equality for the Jews shown here?
Here is the link to one post of the thread to bring up the thread in question
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/391926.html
Lou
Posted by Toph on July 9, 2008, at 16:03:10
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
I got all hung up in this multiple posting problem back in the day so I thought I'd chime in. My first instinct was to say that we are so constrained by civility restrictions that the community could not work with the problem itself. I and others were punished when attempting to interact with these posters. Then I read Kid's recommendation, and like duh, why can't I just ignore stuff that bugs me? I can better overlook annoyances here now, but that is probably a function of being so less invested in this place than I was four years ago. I also speculated that maybe Bob instituted this rule after he seemingly defending a poster's right to post at will for so long because he felt remorse for having to punish so many Babblers who struggled with this posting style. The rule did feel so unBoblike.
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:23:02
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » kid47, posted by Toph on July 9, 2008, at 16:03:10
I imagine an experiment could hurt enough to reinstiture the 3 consecutive post limit, if that is what is really needed to remember why we had it instituted in the first place.
Yes, a rule can be necessitated by the behavior of a single poster. If you can figure out which poster I had in mind, then kudos to you.
It is what it is.
Actually, I would love to see the board fill up with the name of this poster littered everwhere. I would find it quite amusing at this point. People quite often get what they wish for.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:54:10
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » kid47, posted by Lou PIlder on July 9, 2008, at 15:17:22
I, for one, appreciate your not having changed the subject line.
Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by fayeroe on July 10, 2008, at 8:46:52
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:54:10
One foolproof way to deal with this is to cancel email notifications on this thread.
Posted by fayeroe on July 10, 2008, at 8:46:57
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 5:54:10
One foolproof way to deal with this is to cancel email notifications on this thread.
Posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
In reply to Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2008, at 12:09:22
I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 13:47:35
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
> I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Friends,
I would like to offer a link to a post in a thread here so that you could have more infomation concerning aspects of this thread. If you could click on the link, then I think that you could have a better understanding of the issues here and be better able to post accordidingly.
Here is the link to one post of the thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin.20021128/msgs/8805.html
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 13:50:50
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » Toph, posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 13:47:35
> > I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
>
> Friends,
> I would like to offer a link to a post in a thread here so that you could have more infomation concerning aspects of this thread. If you could click on the link, then I think that you could have a better understanding of the issues here and be better able to post accordidingly.
> Here is the link to one post of the thread.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin.20021128/msgs/8805.html
> LouFriends,
Here is the corrected link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8805.html
Posted by SLS on July 10, 2008, at 15:09:28
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three » SLS, posted by fayeroe on July 10, 2008, at 8:46:52
> One foolproof way to deal with this is to cancel email notifications on this thread.
What number are we up to so far?
It is possible that you are underestimating the ingenuity of a fool.
Call me a fool.
- Scott
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 10, 2008, at 15:17:53
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
> I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Friends,
I would like for to offer the following link to a post that also could IMO bring more clarity into the this discussion and IMO help pthers to have a better idea of the issues in this thread to respond accordingly.
Here is a link to one post in the thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/677945.html
Lou
Posted by 64bowtie on July 10, 2008, at 17:25:07
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by kid47 on July 9, 2008, at 12:09:39
To your point, Kid, I know some folks have passed over almost all of my posts, but here I am, not in pain about it, just continuing to post, accepting their behavior as plausible or probable... I feel I'd have to wear a "Dunce Cap" if I didn't bear witness to the greater good that has come my way since my entre' to Babble back in November of 2002...
I guess I've had a head start, since I "got over myself" 20 odd years ago...
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on July 10, 2008, at 17:36:27
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by gardenergirl on July 9, 2008, at 14:19:44
GG,
Remind your hubby the next time you "go clumsy", I still think you're cute, clumsy and all......
Rod
PS: Focus on May 15, 2009, ooohhhmm, ooohhhmm, ooohhhmm
Posted by gardenergirl on July 12, 2008, at 19:42:39
In reply to » gardenergirl » Re: rules of three, posted by 64bowtie on July 10, 2008, at 17:36:27
> GG,
>
> Remind your hubby the next time you "go clumsy", I still think you're cute, clumsy and all......
>
> Rod
>
> PS: Focus on May 15, 2009, ooohhhmm, ooohhhmm, ooohhhmmOkay, but why that date????
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 14, 2008, at 19:46:45
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
> I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Friends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I think that the link offered by me here could give more infomation so that you could IMO have a better understanding of the issues in this thread and be better able to respond accordingly.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/724017.html
Posted by SLS on July 15, 2008, at 5:06:59
In reply to Lou's request for members-dheighnhille? » Toph, posted by Lou PIlder on July 14, 2008, at 19:46:45
Good for Psycho-Babble?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 15, 2008, at 5:08:19
In reply to SLS's request to change back the subject line. » Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on July 15, 2008, at 5:06:59
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 15, 2008, at 15:55:10
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
> I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Friends,
I would like for discussants to click and read the offered links so that more infomation could be known in regards to the issues here. If you could examine posts in the thread, I think that there is the potential for the infomation to help in making your response here, if any, better. Here are links.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/774900.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/773747.html
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 16, 2008, at 5:00:12
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three, posted by Toph on July 10, 2008, at 11:28:02
> I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
Friends,
I would like for discussants to click on the following link to see some more infomation that I think could be important to consider in relation to the discussion here for those that are consideing responding here in this thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040112/msgs/307041.html
Lou
Posted by Lou PIlder on July 16, 2008, at 5:02:43
In reply to Re: Proposal regarding the rules of three-phorfigh » Toph, posted by Lou PIlder on July 16, 2008, at 5:00:12
> > I recall, although admittedly not with perfect clarity, that there was a poster who repeatedly asked the administration for a determination of the appropriateness of a particular post, frequently implying that a post was anti-semetic. Usually the poster in question was understandibly upset by this implication and all forms of discord would ensue. For some reason, this pattern appears to have dissipated of its oun accord. So maybe the 3 consecutive post rule was unnecessary and the polyposting problem would have resolved inself in time as well. But then, I am also hoping that the Cubs will win their first World Series in a hundred years.
>
> Friends,
> I would like for discussants to click on the following link to see some more infomation that I think could be important to consider in relation to the discussion here for those that are consideing responding here in this thread.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040112/msgs/307041.html
> LouFriends,
Here is the corected link
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
Lou
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.