Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob » AuntieMel

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 27, 2004, at 15:37:19

In reply to Re: Oh For crying in the Sink! - Dr. Bob » Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on September 27, 2004, at 14:59:51

> I'm seeing a double standard here too. Is Lou somehow inferior because he has multiple posts????

How on Earth did the concept of inferior enter into this?

Lou has stated that his posting style is consistent with his thinking style. He asked that people be understanding of that. Fine. No problem. I understand.

Others have stated that the act of being questioned about posts makes them feel defensive. Makes them feel that they have failed to communicate effectively. Fine. No problem. I understand.

Is there a way to accomodate both, so that neither feels *unduly* forced to accomodate others? Yes, I think there is.

If it was made known that one had a single post within which to make one's point, I would think that a poster would be well-advised to craft a good post.....one that allowed them to make their full argument....BEFORE hitting the confirm button. Do a cut and paste, whatever it takes to assemble the message, but only once do you transmit it.

If it was also known that only a single post would ever be sent with respect to clarification or whatever, the recipient of that post would know that if they did not reply, they could let it go. It's over, if they so choose. No defense required.

I think that reasonably accomodates all posters. If a dialogue occurs, the "one post only" rule is renewed with each and every post in the dialogue.

Or, alternatively, I also think that maybe two posts might be a reasonable threshold, as P.S. type thoughts ought not to be wholly restricted.

Three posts? My absolute maximum acceptable number.

In any case, I don't think there should be unlimited opportunity to challenge the content of anyone else's post. The FAQ defines that as uncivil already (pressure/harassment).

If the rule is framed well, we do not need a special case for Bob, or for Admin issues, unless he fails to answer at all. So long as replies are forthcoming, the rule would permit further questioning. I'd hate to have a rule that allowed Bob to stonewall, though, so that would be an issue for me.

Lar

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Larry Hoover thread:395111
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395860.html