![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 106 to 130 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:38:35
In reply to Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:28:42
Larry,
You wrote,[...then being asked to justify a particular word...].
If you are referring to my requests for clarification, my requests are in general not for the other poster to justify a particular word , but to clarify something.
I am asking for this clarification so that I can respond accordingly. I feel that the requests allows the other poster to rephrase the statement, not to deminish the posters language for I also agree with you that we all write in a way that could have us use a word that was not intended. I just had a poster here respond to a request for clarification by me by saying that he did not mean to say it as he said it and he changed it to what he really meant. I feel that that is a good thing because we were able to continue our discussion after the clarification came forth. I feel that if I did not ask for clarification, then the discussion could end.
Lou.
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 18:22:10
In reply to Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:38:35
I notice you reached the 3 consecutive post limit. But you can post to me if you like.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51
In reply to Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 18:22:10
Rosie,
Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:21:42
In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51
It's within the rules. Of course if you do not wish to post me that is your prerogative.
> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:27:05
In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51
I feel accused of attempting to circumvent the rules. Please rule whether it is civil to imply that another is trying to circumvent the rules which would be a put down and an accusation which would result in hurt feelings for the accused party. Thank you
> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:29:55
In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396506.html
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:36:45
In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51
Please determine if I have been accused of participating in a conspiracy. I would consider this damaging to me and in violation of the rules. Thank you.<some sort of affiliate>
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:46:58
In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51
Thank you.
> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 20:49:41
In reply to Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 18:22:10
> I notice you reached the 3 consecutive post limit. But you can post to me if you like.
Rosie,
I am sorry that you see my reply as you do. I think there is a misunderstanding.
Your post was in the thread that I had used my 3 consecutive posts. What you wrote to me then goes to show that you were offering me an opportunity to post by posting a post to break the consecutivness. I do not want to be able to post on the basis that someone posted to start the consecutive posts over. I feel that if you wanted to converse with me, that in this instance, it would be to start a new thread with a new topic. That way, it would not appear that we had some type of affiliation together to enable me to overide the 3-post rule.
My apologies if I did nort make that clear in my writing.
Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:55:41
In reply to Lou's reply to Rosie » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 20:49:41
I feel accused by this party . He is offering interpretations of what I wrote which hurt me and are not accurate. Please determine if he is within the posting guidelins.Thank you
<What you wrote to me then goes to show that you were offering me an opportunity to post by posting a post to break the consecutivness.> I
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:58:07
In reply to Dr BOB please check this post 2, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:55:41
I resign from Babble to avoid the shame of being banned for breaking the 3 post rule.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:03:17
In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 19:32:51
> Rosie,
> Thank you for thinking of me, but I think that we should not try to circumvent the rule. It would be easy for me or anyone else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
> LouRosie,
In my reply to you, I stated that it would be easy for me or anybody else to have some sort of affiliate working together to post a post to circumvent the rule.
And that is why I did not want to overide the rule. I could have, but I chose not to because you did not want me to reply to anything that was from you, but to continue posting, which was a reply to Larry . Now I was posting to Larry, and not to you, so I did not feel that to post to you about Larry would be proper in this instance. Now if Larry was to post, then he would be opening the door to further discussion, but I do not think that others could open the door unless there was something that they posted to the discussion. Just saying that I can talk to you would be only breaking the consecutivness and I do not want it to appear that you and I could be doing that to overide the rule.
I am sorry that you feel the way you do about this and I apoplogize if there was a misunderstanding.
Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:27:17
In reply to Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:03:17
I feel that trying to exclude a new person from the conversation should be against the rules. If a conversation is private it should be in e-mail. I thought everyone was allowed to participate on public threads. Attempting to exclude particular persons is hurtful. If someone doesn't want to reply don't but pleas don't allow this sort of "private conversation" you're not welcome here feelin. Yes I did want him to reply to me my question was Any more thoughts?
But after I asked him not to reply to me THEN he DOES and I feel lectured and put down and accused.
Please address this matter Thank you
>
not to because you did not want me to reply to anything that was from you, but to continue posting, which was a reply to Larry . Now I was posting to Larry, and not to you, so I did not feel that to post to you about Larry would be proper in this instance. Now if Larry was to post, then he would be opening the door to further discussion, but I do not think that others could open the door unless there was something that they posted to the discussion. Just saying that I can talk to you would be only breaking the consecutivness and I do not want it to appear that you and I could be doing that to overide the rule.
> I am sorry that you feel the way you do about this and I apoplogize if there was a misunderstanding.
> Lou
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:28:25
In reply to I resign from Babble, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:58:07
Rosie,
You wrote, [...it is within the rules...].
I'm sorry, but I feel that it is not within the rules. You see, that is why I did not want to acccept your offer. But I did write to you [...thank you for thinking of me...].
You were being sensitive to my wanting to continue to post and it appeared that you wanted to help me by breaking the consecutivness with just a post directed to you but with no topic to discuss. I felt good that someone would want to be that kind to offer me an opportunity to post when I had used up my 3 posts. But I do not think it is within the rules because you could have started a new thread which would have no connection to the fact that I had used my 3 posts. There is a higher rule than the rule itself. That rule may not be posted here, but that does not mean that it does not exist. I feel that it would be dishonest for me to continue to post on the basis that someone made a post that did not have a topic to discuss but to allow me to continue what I was posting to another person. I am not saying that you would think that way and I thanked you for the offer because I thought you wanted to help me .
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:42:20
In reply to DR Bob please check this post, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:27:17
Rosie,
you wrote,[...I feel trying to exclude a person from a conversation is against the rules...].
If you are saying that I was trying to exclude you from the discussion in the thread, then my reply would be that I was not trying to exclude you from the discussion for you could have asked me something relevant to the discussion and I could have replied. You also could have addressed to Larry. You also could have posted a general comment to both me and Larry.
The only person that I feel was excluded from the discussion was me because of the 3-post rule, and I did not want to accept your offer to break the exclusion of me from the discussion by just posting that I could talk to you. I feel that for me to post would be a continuation of my posts in consecutivness, for I do not think that just any post could break the consecutivness rule. What if after my 3 post someone posted "good post, Lou" I do not think that that post could be a basis for the 3-post rule to be overided.
Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:48:03
In reply to Lou's response to Rosie » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:42:20
He has posted to me FOUR times since I asked him not to. I am feeling harassed. Please enforce the rules. Thank you.
> Rosie,
> you wrote,[...I feel trying to exclude a person from a conversation is against the rules...].
> If you are saying that I was trying to exclude you from the discussion in the thread, then my reply would be that I was not trying to exclude you from the discussion for you could have asked me something relevant to the discussion and I could have replied. You also could have addressed to Larry. You also could have posted a general comment to both me and Larry.
> The only person that I feel was excluded from the discussion was me because of the 3-post rule, and I did not want to accept your offer to break the exclusion of me from the discussion by just posting that I could talk to you. I feel that for me to post would be a continuation of my posts in consecutivness, for I do not think that just any post could break the consecutivness rule. What if after my 3 post someone posted "good post, Lou" I do not think that that post could be a basis for the 3-post rule to be overided.
> Lou
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 21:56:51
In reply to Lou's reply to Rosie-within rules » RosieOGrady, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 21:28:25
Hi Lou.
I think it is very laudable that you should have made adjustments in your posting style to be able to fit your posts within the new guidelines. In addition, you demonstrate a respect for the spirit of the new guidelines to not look for ways to circumvent them disrespectfully. Since I can't fully appreciate how difficult this has been for you, I can only say thank you. I hope you are able to find ways to express yourself to a completeness that satisfies your desires to communicate.
Sincerely,
Scott
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 22:01:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply - within rules, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 21:56:51
Hi Lou.
> I think it is very laudable that you should have made adjustments in your posting style to be able to fit your posts within the new guidelines. In addition, you demonstrate a respect for the spirit of the new guidelines to not look for ways to circumvent them disrespectfully. Since I can't fully appreciate how difficult this has been for you, I can only say thank you. I hope you are able to find ways to express yourself to a completeness that satisfies your desires to communicate.I look forward to reading your contributions to Psycho-Babble.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 22:03:20
In reply to Re: Lou's reply - within rules » SLS, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 22:01:00
Posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:31
In reply to BOB the post in question, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 20:29:55
Wow, that was fast. I think my neck snapped.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:43
In reply to Dr BOB please Check this post, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:48:03
DR. Hsiung,
I thought that the poster ,Rosie, was posting to me because I saw the phrase, [...in reply to Lou Pilder...] in the posts and thought that the poster in question was replying to me and that the [...do not post to me was lifted...]. After looking at how the posts are set up with the different names, I then realized this mistake. This is a mistake by me and not an intentional one and I apologize for answeing the poster.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 28, 2004, at 23:28:41
In reply to Re: BOB the post in question » RosieOGrady, posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:31
> Wow, that was fast. I think my neck snapped.
> gg: )
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2004, at 4:51:17
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 13:44:56
> Please summarize this rule in it's entirety and post it
As you can see, this is an ongoing process, but how about:
Please share these boards with others by not posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread or starting more than 3 consecutive new threads on the same board. Unless you're responding to earlier posts one at a time.
> so that all can follow it without getting spanked.
>
> gardenergirlAre people feeling treated like bad children?
----
> If someone is making repeated posts to the same person in a thread, can the person not ask, "please don't post further about this subject to me," or even, "can we take this discussion offline?" and discuss it via Babblemail?
>
> partlycloudyYes, but (1) they might not feel comfortable doing that and (2) the repeated posts might not be directed to the same person.
> I did exceed three total requests, but I did not ever make three consecutive requests without any topical reply from the other party.
>
> LarRight, by consecutive, I mean without any other posts in between.
> I prefer to think of babble ... as a place where the rights of the minority are protected against the majority.
Think of it as trying to make it easier for those who aren't so comfortable posting to jump in?
> A scenario where you post three, someone complains about it, which frees you up to post three more! This is the first case I've seen where the complainer (by babble rules) gets the opposite effect than desired.
But they could redirect their complaint...
> The best I can think of is for the main page to act the same way as the ones you get when reading a post on a long thread: show the first few and the last few and hide the rest.
But I think it's nice to see how many posts there are, what they're about, and who posted them...
> I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)
>
> MelThere's that, too...
> In psychic terms, it's like someone yelling over other more genteel conversations taking place in a crowded room, demanding attention.
Or inhibiting others...
> I'm asking for a guideline. I was accused of violating the pressure ... rule, when I do not feel that I did.
>
> LarDon't continue to ask a question if someone's declining to respond to it?
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 29, 2004, at 6:44:34
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2004, at 4:51:17
> > Please summarize this rule in it's entirety and post it
>
> As you can see, this is an ongoing process, but how about:
>
> Please share these boards with others by not posting more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in the same thread or starting more than 3 consecutive new threads on the same board. Unless you're responding to earlier posts one at a time.Ok, that's much clearer. However, as Dinah has made clear, there are emotional times that really do not lend themselves to accomodating the concept of limit. When someone is triggered, they don't have a rational head. How about you set aside one board (e.g. Social) where that rule is not enforced?
> > In psychic terms, it's like someone yelling over other more genteel conversations taking place in a crowded room, demanding attention.
>
> Or inhibiting others...Thank you for acknowledging that effect.
>
> > I'm asking for a guideline. I was accused of violating the pressure ... rule, when I do not feel that I did.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Don't continue to ask a question if someone's declining to respond to it?
>
> BobBut Bob, he did reply. There was a dialogue, not a monologue. His replies were narrowing down, as was my questioning. He just never got to giving a single best supporting site, from his initial claim of widespread information, and intermediate claims of specialized information at certain sites. He was making some remarkable claims about a whole class of medication.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on September 29, 2004, at 8:13:42
In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 16:48:28
Debate well? Why, thank you. That is the best complement I've had in a very, very long time.
Maybe there is hope for the rest of my brain.
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.