Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 394224

Shown: posts 89 to 113 of 291. Go back in thread:

Re: Lou's response to thos ethat want the 3 post r » Lou Pilder

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 9:42:02

In reply to Lou's response to thos ethat want the 3 post rule » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 9:14:08

Actually, I might even have a problem with that, though I still wouldn't want it banned.
The objection is: it would be taking up space for no good reason. The speech is written and could easily be put in one.
This is MUCH different than reminders to someone, or adding follow-ups as new thoughts come to mind.

Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Larry Hoover

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 9:53:41

In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 8:55:18

Right Lar. I remember that, and I remember I was on your side then, too. You always have good stuff to contribute, and I thought that the block was way, way, way too long - and that the guy *was* saying things without any studies to back him up.
But there are some major differences:
1) This new rule wouldn't have applied to you then, as your posts weren't consecutive.
<NOTE: Plese Dr. Bob - I'm stating what I remember, not accusing wrongdoing>

2) You were addressing a 'fellow' poster, not admin. This rule doesn't allow for that distinction.
3) You were asking for the same bits of information, where in this case there were additional bits of information added each time.
So, while I disagreed about your block, I don't see that making the rules even more restrictive is the answer.

Lou's response to thos ethat want the 3 post r » AuntieMel

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 9:56:49

In reply to Re: Lou's response to thos ethat want the 3 post r » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 9:42:02

AM,
You wrote,[...the objection is: it would be taking up space for {no good reason}...].
I belive that there could be a good reason for posting a speech in consecutive posts.
One, each particular point being made by the speaker could be in one post which IMO could further discussion by giving the readers an opportunity to focus on one aspect of the speech.
Lou

Re: Interesting points - but.....

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:09:04

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 9:13:45

Hi Mel.
> Please be known that I consider you to have valuable input to Babble. I just have a difference of opinion with you regarding this issue.
I'm glad there are differences of opinion. It makes life more interesting, and usually makes things better - at least theoretically. :-)
> > How many people here have commited murder?

> I think this is a bad example.
I would have chosen tax-evasion, but I feared it would have included too many people to make my point.
> Murder does actually hurt another person. Multiple posts to admin hurt nobody.
I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.
> Besides, I prefer to think of babble as NOT being a democracy (majority rules.)
Me too.
> I prefer to think of it as a place where the rights of the minority are protected against the majority.
I prefer to think of it as a place where the protections offered to the one are for the equal protection of all.
> But how much has flexibility been used in other cases? Every time I've stood up for someone, I've been told that 'rules is rules' and intent is too hard to determine to be able to take it into account. NO EXCEPTIONS, I've been told. Why is this different??
It may not be. I don't know what are the intentions of the moderator. I think any new policy or regulation is to suffer growing pains - perhaps even repeal.
> Question: what do you consider 'settle down' to be? Give the new rule time to gel, and those of us that have a problem with it shut our trap?
:-)
(Just kidding)
> Or chunk the rule completely?
I don't know what "chunk" means. Repeal?
> Yes, but only one person has actually done multiple posts with regularity.
This has been to our good fortune, I think.
> So, while theoretically it applies to all, in practice it only applies to one.
I disagree. In reality, it applies to all.
> And it's NotMurder!
OK! OK! Tax-evasion!!!

> > This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive. I am sure there are many people who did not find Lou's behavior thusfar to be disruptive. It is not about him. It is about a potential for abuse. I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.

> Two separate thoughts here. If we worry about *potential* for abuse, then we have the *potential* of laying down so many rules that there is the *potential* for even smileys to be banned.
:-)
I hope not. I would sooner leave the board myself under such a regulation.
> If someone *personally* finds it disruptive (especially on admin) then - As Dr. Bob says so often, there are other pages to visit.
And other sites.
I don't want to have to leave this one. Unlimited consecutive posting could easily cause this to happen. I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me. I also believe that posting limits are in the best interests of the community as a whole. It's nice when the two coincide.
> It is my opinion that any rule that has built in flexibility (considering intent) and an arbitrary line drawn (3? why not 2? or 6?) is a bad rule. Why base the number on one archiving?
I don't know what Dr. Bob's criteria were for setting 3 as the threshold. I only audited the boards to quell Dinah's fears that she would not be able to interact here because she couldn't adhere to the number 3. I was happy to discover that among all the boards during an entire archiving period, she only felt the need to post more than 3 times in only one instance.

- Scott

Re: Lou's response to SLS » Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:34:23

In reply to Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 9:30:42

Hi Lou.
I'm glad that we are not enemies.
> Now I think that if a poster starts off with alerting that there will be many posts to what they are about to post, that evryone that is reading the thread could have the opportunity to not read it,
If a poster had the awareness and forethought that there would be sufficient material for multiple posts in advance, he could simply consolidate the material into a single post.
I have found on a few occasions several consecutive posts easier to read than one long post because of dramatic effect. Certainly, the number can't be infinite, or even 100. There is a numerical threshold beyond which consecutive posts becomes a hazard to the health of the community. Setting a limit necessarily requires an arbitrary number, but that is not to say that such a number can't be made optimal based upon existant factors in the environment. It seems that the existing posting habits of the community yield 3 consecutive posts as being the mode (beyond 2). 4 consecutive posts have been extremely infrequent.
For what it's worth to you, I found much of your argument regarding the writings of Jean Rousseau to have merit.

- Scott

Lou's response to SLS-dpr-sp » SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 10:37:39

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but....., posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:09:04

SLS,
You wrote,[...I feel that unlimited(consecutive) posting deprives others of screen space...].
I have been reading these posts here about this and find:
A.That IMO the issue is the (consecutiveness) of the posts and not the length of the total post if the individual posts were put as one post, for there is no limit in the rule to the {number of posts} as long as when 3 is reached, another post , for any reason I guess, by another poster is posted and then the poster writing the consecutive posts could go on with 3 more posts , etc..
B. Posters are not told that they can not post in the thread where the consecutive posts are.
C. There has been nothing brought to our attention that the amount of words or bytes in a post must be limited, for people here write long posts, which could have the potential to mean that it is not the volume of the post that is the focus of the rule, but the consecutivness of the posts.
When you wrote ,[...deprives others of screen space...], could you clarify what you meant as to anyone being {deprived} screen space by another's post? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou

Re: Interesting points - but.....

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:40:53

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but....., posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:09:04

> I prefer to think of it as a place where the protections offered to the one are for the equal protection of all.
I should also say that there are times when the protections offered to all require a limitation upon the privileges of the one.
Now, I have exhausted my allocation. Crap.

- Scott

Re: Lou's response to SLS-dpr-sp » Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:44:34

In reply to Lou's response to SLS-dpr-sp » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 10:37:39

* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test Lou Pilder
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS
* Test SLS

- Scott

Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 12:53:03

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but....., posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 10:09:04

I'll answer you so you can be freed for three more. Although I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)
> > > How many people here have commited murder?
>
> > I think this is a bad example.
>
> I would have chosen tax-evasion, but I feared it would have included too many people to make my point.
>
Well, actually either one makes a different point. If only one person had ever committed murder or tax-evasion, there would be no need for a law, would there?

> > Murder does actually hurt another person. Multiple posts to admin hurt nobody.
>
> I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.
>
I would be more inclined to agree if the multiple posts were in the middle of a thread AND had nothing to do whatever with that thread. But in the case of one poster starting a thread and adding to it? I can't see a disruption.
It would be nice, though, if things could be archived thread-by-thread according to posts, and *then* look at the size of the entire board. This would help many, many cased, not just multiple postings by the same person.
It's not the goal I disagree with, just the way of achieving it.
And I can't see how a rule with an arbitrary number that is also considered case-by-case (allowing for exceptions) could be enforced fairly.

> > Besides, I prefer to think of babble as NOT being a democracy (majority rules.)
>
> Me too.
>
> > I prefer to think of it as a place where the rights of the minority are protected against the majority.
>
> I prefer to think of it as a place where the protections offered to the one are for the equal protection of all.
>
> > But how much has flexibility been used in other cases? Every time I've stood up for someone, I've been told that 'rules is rules' and intent is too hard to determine to be able to take it into account. NO EXCEPTIONS, I've been told. Why is this different??
>
> It may not be. I don't know what are the intentions of the moderator. I think any new policy or regulation is to suffer growing pains - perhaps even repeal.
>
> > Question: what do you consider 'settle down' to be? Give the new rule time to gel, and those of us that have a problem with it shut our trap?
>
> :-)
>
> (Just kidding)
>
> > Or chunk the rule completely?
>
> I don't know what "chunk" means. Repeal?
>
For those that don't speak Texan, chunk sort of means throw away - with force and without aim. You can chunk rocks.

>> So, while theoretically it applies to all, in practice it only applies to one.
> I disagree. In reality, it applies to all.
>
Ok, a bit of hair splitting, but true. It applies to all, except for the exceptions. But it's much more likely to be used on only one.

>
> > > This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive.
I didn't answer this one before, but it sounds like you are attempting to protect Lou from himself??
>>I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.
I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.

> I don't want to have to leave this one. Unlimited consecutive posting could easily cause this to happen. I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me.
Perhaps I don't see why it is personal to you.

>I also believe that posting limits are in the best interests of the community as a whole. It's nice when the two coincide.
>
I (personally) see it more like the Patriot Act - where the rights of the few are trampled in the name of safety for the many. "Trampled" here is the wrong word - too extreme, but I see the concept as the same.

Mel
ps - it was nice having lots of time to reply, you being stuck at two and waiting for another post......

Re: Lou's response to thos ethat want the 3 post r » Lou Pilder

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 13:09:51

In reply to Lou's response to thos ethat want the 3 post r » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 9:56:49

Well, in that case you have a good reason. And if you stated that reason in the beginning it should be allowed.
In my opinion.

Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 13:44:56

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 12:53:03

> I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.
Please be civil. I don't appreciate having my concerns characterized as a pet-peeve.
The "do not harass/pressure" rule has been in existence for a long time. The issue is how to more succinctly define it. "I know it when I see it" doesn't work for most people. I can state, without equivocation, that it does not work for me.
I feel harassed when I see a string of similar posts. I feel pressured to attend to a subject which may well be of little interest to me, a priori, if there is one post after another, numbered and defined. In psychic terms, it's like someone yelling over other more genteel conversations taking place in a crowded room, demanding attention.
I feel diminished if my language is dissected and minutely examined via requests to clarify. If someone does not get my point, I am more than happy to rephrase or expand on my thoughts. That is a different sort of request, though, than being asked to justify the particular use of a word or phrase when ambiguity of meaning is a core characteristic of language itself. That the dictionary or etymology of a word may conceivably convey a particular meaning of that word, that does not mean that *I* meant that particular meaning of the word. It is like someone trying to put words in my mouth, to substitute their thoughts for my own. It puts me on the defensive. If I am feeling defensive, I may have no desire to speak at all. Receiving multiple posts with a similar effect is a pressure I do not wish to bear.
It is quite a different thing to receive a question like, "I'm not sure just what you meant when you said 'xxxxx'. Could you try rephrasing that, or expanding on those thoughts?"
I want a rule that helps me to feel protected, even if I never need to invoke it. It's a matter of consideration. There is no right answer. There are different answers. Unconstrained posting has been described by myself and others as problematic. You can consider my feelings, or not. I'm asking that you do. I'm asking you to consider the feelings of those who spoke of their distress, and who may have been silenced because their feelings are not being validated. Those immune to that emotional response are not likely to be the ones being constrained from posting on the subject. I suspect there are silent people who care a great deal about how this is settled, but who are uncomfortable enough to be unable to speak in their own interests.
I'm asking for a guideline. I was accused of violating the pressure/harassment rule, when I do not feel that I did. I feel that other posters have crossed the line into pressure/harassment without receiving sanction. Where is that darn line, anyway? It isn't nowhere. I've met it. But I don't know where I'll meet it again, and that bothers me a great deal.
Lar

Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 15:39:02

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 12:53:03

Hi Mel.
We are both so persistent. :-)
> I'll answer you so you can be freed for three more. Although I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)
It is perhaps unfortunate that people have already recognized a way around the new posting system to be able abuse it. I will call it tag-team posting. I hope it does not become an issue.
> > > > How many people here have commited murder?

> > > I think this is a bad example.

> > I would have chosen tax-evasion, but I feared it would have included too many people to make my point.

> Well, actually either one makes a different point. If only one person had ever committed murder or tax-evasion, there would be no need for a law, would there?
I don't think God would repeal the Sixth Commandment were everyone to follow it.
> > > Murder does actually hurt another person. Multiple posts to admin hurt nobody.
> > I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.

> I would be more inclined to agree if the multiple posts were in the middle of a thread AND had nothing to do whatever with that thread. But in the case of one poster starting a thread and adding to it? I can't see a disruption.
Please see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
> And I can't see how a rule with an arbitrary number that is also considered case-by-case (allowing for exceptions) could be enforced fairly.
I don't think we yet know how it will be implemented.
> > > > This might be a fact, but it is not Lou's fault that the system allowed for a posting behavior that could be disruptive.

> I didn't answer this one before, but it sounds like you are attempting to protect Lou from himself??
Not at all. I am attempting to advocate for the protection of the community. You might be confusing me with another poster.
> > I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.

> I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.
As you have mentioned before, however, protecting the individual from the majority is often of critical importance.
> > I don't want to have to leave this one. Unlimited consecutive posting could easily cause this to happen. I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me.

> Perhaps I don't see why it is personal to you.
Please see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html

> I (personally) see it more like the Patriot Act - where the rights of the few are trampled in the name of safety for the many.
I think there will always be conflicts to be found between the desires of the individual and the interests of the majority (or state). Shouting "fire" in a movie theatre when there is none so as to incite a panic is one such example for which the health of the many takes precedence over the freedom of the individual to his speech. Doing so is against the law.
> "Trampled" here is the wrong word - too extreme,
Not so. That is precisely what happens to the people in the theatre.
> ps - it was nice having lots of time to reply, you being stuck at two and waiting for another post......
:-)

- Scott

Re: Interesting points - but..... » Larry Hoover

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 15:53:30

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 13:44:56

Youch. My bad. I said that (to Scott) because Scott said it bothered him personally. I certainly wasn't trying to invalidate anyone's feelings. If it felt like that to you, though, I apologize. Sincerely.

>
> The "do not harass/pressure" rule has been in existence for a long time. The issue is how to more succinctly define it. "I know it when I see it" doesn't work for most people. I can state, without equivocation, that it does not work for me.
I agree with you completely. Which is one of the reasons this rule bothers me. Dr. Bob himself has allowed that there might be exceptions. So I don't see where this defines it any better.
>
> In psychic terms, it's like someone yelling over other more genteel conversations taking place in a crowded room, demanding attention.
That's an interesting analogy. And very appropriate in some ways.

> I feel diminished if my language is dissected and minutely examined via requests to clarify. If someone does not get my point, I am more than happy to rephrase or expand on my thoughts. That is a different sort of request, though, than being asked to justify the particular use of a word or phrase when ambiguity of meaning is a core characteristic of language itself.
Certainly if a person wants to be sure that they understand you, saying what they don't quite understand can be quite friendlier - and more direct. And you are right that the thought process is what really needs to be understand, not the use of a particular word.
>
> I want a rule that helps me to feel protected, even if I never need to invoke it. It's a matter of consideration. There is no right answer. There are different answers. Unconstrained posting has been described by myself and others as problematic. You can consider my feelings, or not. I'm asking that you do. I'm asking you to consider the feelings of those who spoke of their distress, and who may have been silenced because their feelings are not being validated.
Everyone's feelings are valid. In fact, I've been known to present opposite opinions in case someone out there would like to disagree with the majority but can't bring him/herself to be the first one to speak up.
> I'm asking for a guideline. I was accused of violating the pressure/harassment rule, when I do not feel that I did. I feel that other posters have crossed the line into pressure/harassment without receiving sanction. Where is that darn line, anyway? It isn't nowhere. I've met it. But I don't know where I'll meet it again, and that bothers me a great deal.
>
Well, I didn't think you deserved the block either. And I think that ambiguous rules are nearly impossible to enforce evenly. I think it either needs to be rethought or there should be no exceptions. Otherwise, you are right. How will you know when you've crossed the line?
Peace?

Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS

Posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 16:34:13

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 15:39:02

>
> We are both so persistent. :-)
Why, yes we are. In my mind it's a friendly discussion. I hope the same is true for you??

> > I'll answer you so you can be freed for three more. Although I could effectively cut you off by NOT answering:)
>
> It is perhaps unfortunate that people have already recognized a way around the new posting system to be able abuse it. I will call it tag-team posting. I hope it does not become an issue.
>
Well, I'm sure if it does, we can figure out another rule:)
Seriously - I don't expect it to be any more of an issue than multiple posting was. Or any less.

> I don't think God would repeal the Sixth Commandment were everyone to follow it.
Maybe not, but would it have been written if nobody had done it? Why give people the idea?

> > > I disagree. I find it disruptive to the flow of discourse and makes it much harder for me to read about issues that are important to me. I feel that unlimited consecutive posting deprives others of screen space and causes the board to turn over more frequently than I can follow. Anyone who *does* want to hurt the community could do so under this circumstance.
>
> > I would be more inclined to agree if the multiple posts were in the middle of a thread AND had nothing to do whatever with that thread. But in the case of one poster starting a thread and adding to it? I can't see a disruption.
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
>
Point taken. I still like my idea of the site 'hiding' all but the first few and last few mesages on long threads. This would help even the cases where some get very long. This happens quite a bit now - with multiple posters - and doing this snuff a couple of birds with one chunk of a stone.
> > And I can't see how a rule with an arbitrary number that is also considered case-by-case (allowing for exceptions) could be enforced fairly.
>
> I don't think we yet know how it will be implemented.
>
This is true.

> > > I personally found that 10 or more consecutive posts submitted multiple instances on the same page was disruptive.
>
> > I can see that, but creating a rule for personal pet-peeves isn't necessarily the answer either.
>
> As you have mentioned before, however, protecting the individual from the majority is often of critical importance.
>
Touche! If it is something that really distresses you and it's not a minor pet peeve then you are right. Protecting your rights is just as important.
And I do believe I said protecting the *rights* of the minority, which *is* different than protecting the minority. It's a good thing to do, but different.

> > > I wouldn't want to be here if there were continual filibusters and endless pontificating. This is personal - to me.
>
> > Perhaps I don't see why it is personal to you.
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396267.html
>
Did I miss something? I can see where this shows what a screen full of the same thing would look like, but I can't see what makes it personal. Oh, well, I guess the why isn't that important anyway.

> > I (personally) see it more like the Patriot Act - where the rights of the few are trampled in the name of safety for the many.
>
> I think there will always be conflicts to be found between the desires of the individual and the interests of the majority (or state). Shouting "fire" in a movie theatre when there is none so as to incite a panic is one such example for which the health of the many takes precedence over the freedom of the individual to his speech.
Again - big difference between "desires" and "rights." That's why the fire-in-the-theater one was settled at the Supreme Court level.

>
> > ps - it was nice having lots of time to reply, you being stuck at two and waiting for another post......
>
> :-)
Gotcha.
Mel

Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel

Posted by SLS on September 28, 2004, at 16:48:28

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 28, 2004, at 16:34:13

> > We are both so persistent. :-)
> Why, yes we are. In my mind it's a friendly discussion. I hope the same is true for you??
Most certainly. I find this discourse stimulating. You debate well. I think much good has come of this.

- Scott

Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Larry Hoover

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:20:10

In reply to Re: Interesting points - but..... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on September 28, 2004, at 13:44:56

Larry,
You wrote,[...I feel harrassed when I see a string of similar posts...]
If you are referring to my style of writing, I try to make each individual post have a difference in them so that they could be individually thought about. If you are referring to my posts as being consecutive,I am sorry that you feel harrassed, for it is not my intention to harrass anyone by posting here, but just to post for support. I have receved posts here that complment my postings and that they enjoy reading them and want me to continue. I really would like to change my style of writing to accomodate others feelings if I could. But in this case, I can not because I have a rare neurological condition that prevents me from posting like , I guess, others would like me to.
Lou

Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:28:42

In reply to Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 17:20:10

Larry,
You wrote,[...I feel pressured to attend a subject which may well be of little interest to me..].
If you are referring to my posts, I do not belive that anyone is pressured to read anyone's posts. Evryone here is free to read or not read. There are posts here that are available on a veriety of boards. It is close to having something for evryone. And I am proud that I have been able to be a part of this community and have seen changes made as a result of my efforts.
Lou

Lou's reply to Larry Hoover. » Lou Pilder

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.

Do you have any more thoughts? » Lou Pilder

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.

Re: Do you have any more thoughts? » RosieOGrady

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