![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 228 to 252 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on October 1, 2004, at 12:17:44
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 11:23:02
Good point. If anything, an exception for a neurological disorder would be more in line with the spirit in which the ADA laws were created. Which would be a good thing.
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 1, 2004, at 13:18:03
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2004, at 10:29:38
a) It is admittedly hard not to take something personally when a behavior you engage in is being outlawed. I don't think you can take the personal out of it. Especially when I don't know which of my posting behaviors will next be on the block. It's kind of hard to feel happy and secure in that environment, you know?
b) Isn't it funny that I have ultimate trust in you to not post harmful photos on Babble, yet no particular trust in this particular area. I guess I have trust that you'll do everything you can to do what you think is right for Babble, but not for Babblers. I guess that makes sense, given your responsibility here. Oh well, like I said, some things aren't worth saving.
c) I wouldn't want to enforce it, were I a deputy, because of all the exceptions, "I don't know how I'd handle that. Let's wait till it happens", etc.
d) I think a Please be Civil would be dreadful wording. I'd prefer a subject line of "Excuse Me" and a body something like "I'm dreadfully sorry but I have this totally arbitrary rule that you have broken in complete lack of awareness. My apologies, but could you please not post more than three consecutive posts, and here's a link for all the myriad exceptions. I'm dreadfully sorry, but that's the conditions for posting here. Here's a link to some other sites that don't have these arbitrary restrictions." But barring that, how about "Please refer to the guidelines on consecutive postings" rather than a PBC with a link to the URL.
e) Has there ever been an instance on Babble where we've gone back?
Posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 15:30:08
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on October 1, 2004, at 12:17:44
Sometimes I feel like there must be something wrong with me to disagree with the majority..
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2004, at 11:47:49
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 11:23:02
Hi.
> It just seems to me (I don't want to refer to specific posts because I don't want to accuese anyone) that this is no longer a 'hypothetical' question, and that Lou is used by name a lot now.
It was Lou's submitting multiple series of up to 12 consecutive posts that made the problem visible.
This is the point at which I became particularly concerned:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394601.html
It is factual to state that it was the posting behavior of Lou Pilder that upset me. This is not to be a secret. However, I don't think it is productive to continue to bring his name up during this discourse as it is not his fault that the boards were vulnerable to posting abuse. Although it might not have been Lou's intention to be abusive or disruptive, the fact still remains that his posting behavior became problematic. 100 consecutive posts is unacceptable in my opinion.
> And it kind of torques me off that exceptions are made for several other things, but none is made for a neurological problem.
I have a neurological problem too. It truly makes it much more difficult for me to review a board that is filled with so many consecutive posts made by a single individual.
There was an instance when I submitted perhaps 10 consecutive posts because of an obsessive need to make a single point. It was an eyesore on the board, and I was encouraged by the moderator not to do so. I made adjustments. Can everyone else make adjustments? I hope so. Nonetheless, 100 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 99 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 98 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 97 consecutive posts is unacceptable. 96 consecutive posts is unacceptable. (I'll stop at 96). A limit needed to be set. I find multiple series of 10 or more consecutive posts to be disruptive to the communication dynamics of the board. I am in favor of encouraging a limit of 3 consecutive posts.
> How's your day Scott?
Thanks for asking.
Terrible. Cymbalta has abandoned me, and I can barely function well enough to fix myself breakfast. Posting is not entirely without effort either. (Writing is much easier than reading for me). God, this sucks. Sometimes, life seems too long - not too short.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2004, at 11:53:52
In reply to Re: Thank you » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on October 1, 2004, at 15:30:08
> Sometimes I feel like there must be something wrong with me to disagree with the majority..
I was beginning to feel the same way. I surely don't feel like part of the majority. It must be a silent one.
- Scott
Posted by alesta on October 3, 2004, at 20:38:53
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on October 2, 2004, at 11:47:49
> Terrible. Cymbalta has abandoned me, and I can barely function well enough to fix myself breakfast. Posting is not entirely without effort either. (Writing is much easier than reading for me). God, this sucks. Sometimes, life seems too long - not too short.
i can fully relate to that..sorry to hear you're not doing well. :(
(((((scott)))))
Posted by karaS on October 3, 2004, at 21:25:33
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on October 2, 2004, at 11:47:49
> Terrible. Cymbalta has abandoned me, and I can barely function well enough to fix myself breakfast. Posting is not entirely without effort either. (Writing is much easier than reading for me). God, this sucks. Sometimes, life seems too long - not too short.
>
>
> - Scott
What a cruel joke to have that glimpse of something better for a few days and then lose it again. It would have been so much easier and kinder to have had no response at all the whole time. At least then you wouldn't have gotten your hopes up...-K
Posted by AuntieMel on October 3, 2004, at 21:56:00
In reply to Re: witchhunt - I don't know, but... » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on October 2, 2004, at 11:47:49
Wouldn't it be wonderful to be one of the med majority? The ones that can pop prozak and feel better? I'm still looking for the right mix myself.
sigh.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:44:25
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on September 30, 2004, at 23:53:13
Hi, everyone,
Here's an attempt to pull together some of this discussion. I'll be trying to get this rule (and those about objections) into the FAQ sooner rather than even later.
> 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.
> Posting more ... may discourage less confident posters from joining in. At that point, giving others a chance allows them also to help -- and to feel good about doing so.
>
> Welcoming posters, answering questions, and responding to threads with few responses all make the board a better place, are appreciated by me -- and can ... be done without posting 4 consecutive times.> > So, now I have to stop, wait, and refresh until someone adds something to the thread?
> >
> > This would put a pretty big cramp in my style.
>
> Yes, after 3 consecutive posts, you'd need to wait.> > Sometimes Social is a place where people play around and make multiple posts at once.
>
> > Or sometimes during my meltdowns I feel the need to clarify my posts many many times.
>
> > there are emotional times that really do not lend themselves to accomodating the concept of limit.
>
> > And then there are the diariesThere are exceptions to every rule, and I think the above are good examples.
> > Is it possible to have a computer enforced limit of some sort so as to avoid public humiliation of being told you talk too much?
>
> That's an [excellent!] idea, but unfortunately isn't something I could do right away, sorry. Also, my intent is not to humiliate anyone, and I apologize if I have.> > At worst, having multiple posts and even multiple threads just makes me have to scroll a bit more. I can handle that. I may feel annoyed about that every once in awhile, but that's more a function of my own limited capacity for patience
Well, each of us has a limited capacity for patience, and that's an aspect of this, too...
Bob
Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 4:46:33
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:44:25
Ah. I post more than three sometimes... Mostly when I'm trying to clarify. Or when I'm trying to explain. Raving, yeah.
Uh...
Should I stop it?
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:47:45
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:44:25
I still don't like this rule, and vote for its revocation.
Posted by SLS on August 10, 2006, at 1:03:50
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:47:45
> I still don't like this rule, and vote for its revocation.
I think it's a good rule to have on the books. I believe its enforcement has been judicious and not at all intrusive. However, I found the behavior that provoked the formulation of the rule extremely intrusive.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 10:08:59
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 4:46:33
> Ah. I post more than three sometimes... Mostly when I'm trying to clarify. Or when I'm trying to explain. Raving, yeah.
>
> Should I stop it?Well, it's always easier for me not to have to enforce rules. And it might be easier for others if they didn't need to read as many successive clarifications. If they have questions, they can ask, and then you can clarify more interactively...
Bob
Posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 10:25:21
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 10:08:59
>it might be easier for others if they didn't need to read as many successive clarifications. If they have questions, they can ask, and then you can clarify more interactively...
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Okely dokely.
Might stop the head circles too, I suppose...
Posted by Lou PIlder on August 13, 2006, at 7:22:50
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2006, at 11:47:45
Dinah,
You wrote,[...don't like this rule...revocation...].
Thank you for posting such, for I it is refreshing to know that I am not the lone dissenter.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 8:41:16
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2006, at 10:08:59
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...it {might} be easier for others if they didn't need to read as many sucessive clarifications...they can ask...].
But do you approve of someone posting a post after 3 posts, automatically, without asking a question,as Dinah has written, just so that 4 consecutive posts do not appear? If so,then someone did not ask for clarification, but just posted in order for me to continue, right?
If it might be easier, could it also be that it might {not} make it any easier for others to read ? And are the goals of the forum to make all things {easier}? Would not support and education be a higher priority?
For instance, I posted a series about the use of profanity. The end result contributed to the support of the forum and even one poster wrote something like that they appreciated that series about how profanity was not protected in the concept of {freedom of speech}. There was , at least, one other series that another commented on that they appreciated the education that arrouse out of the series.
And on the same point here, when more than three consecutive posts appear, it is not that the poster is writing that he/she is requiering that others not post, right?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 9:43:24
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 8:41:16
The series that I was referring to as to that someone thought that it was good was about Jean Jacques Rousseau, not the one on profanity although I do remember someone thanking me for that one also. There were many other series that I did receive thanks for that someone thought that it was interesting, so it is hard for me to go back to all of those and remember as to each one. But I do remmber the series about Rousseau and there was also one about Mark Medford's poem that resulted in support and education.
Sorry to not remember all of them,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 6:48:30
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:44:25
Dr. Hsiung and his deputies,
Would I be permitted here to have dialog with you to discuss why others are allowed to post 4 consecutive posts here without sanction, while I have been told that I could not have permission to do so?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 6:51:25
In reply to Lou's request to admin for dialog about this rule » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 6:48:30
Friends,
Ahead of time, it looks like I have posted 4 consecutive posts. But one is a correction and has been already determined to not count in this rule.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 18:52:24
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:44:25
I haven't read all the posts on this subject because I would be here FOREVER, but I wanted to throw in my two cents. I've never understood the reasoning behind this rule. It just seems completely unecessary to me. Granted, I haven't experienced an abuse of it in any way, and obviously someone else feels they have. So this is just my humble opinion which you can take for what its worth. I feel this rule would cause unecessary grief. I for one have posted more than three times in a row for various reasons. If we want to get really technical about this, why don't we also ban posts that are not deemed interesting enough. This seems like the same thing to me. I vote against it (even though my vote may not be worth anything).
-T
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 19:43:33
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 18:52:24
TC,
You wrote,[...I never undertood the reasoning behind the rule..unecessary...rule would cause..grief...I have posted more thn 3..why not ban posts that are uninteresting..I vote against..].
You have brought up many essential points involving this rule made here. First, you say do not understand the reasoning behind this rule...]
The reasoning given for the rule is posted here. I think that one reason, of several, is that the maker of the rule writes that some others, perhaps new members, could feel better to post if they did not see more than 3 consecutive posts on the board, is it not? But more than 3 consecutive posts are visible in all the exceptions, which keep comming such as diaries, posting to more than one person, posting in two different days, posting so that you run into another thread that has the first post as your name, administrative allowance, posting corrections that do not count, and maybe some more exceptions that could come up.
So IMO, if the rule is to not allow more than 3 posts to be seen that have the same poster's name, then we have to look at all the facts about what is behind the rule, do we not?
Then can you find this rule in another forum? If so, could you email the web address?
Then could we not seek to determine if the rule was targeted to one individual or not? And could that individual be me? What does the record show? And if so, why me?
Then there is as to what causes consecutive posts. Does the poster of such cause or create them? I think that since I am not saying that others can not post, that the consecutive posts occur because others do not post, not that I create those posts by my telling others that they can not post....
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
In reply to Re: limit of 3 consecutive posts, posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 18:52:24
TC,
In examining all what is behind this rule, I have not yet posted what I think is plainly visible as to why this rule was made here. Tyhis could be so shocking that I have waited to this time to post what is plainly visible.
You see, first, it is a well-known fact here that I have a rare neurological affliction that impairs my spelling and writing. This is all connected to my hearing, like Ludwig von Beethoven. It is all related to music and math and can cause me to not remember some time and to have sensual problems that could cause me to not remember rules that are arbitrary, caprecious or discriminatory, also, because I repress those rules because of the great pain they cause me by my thinking that the rule was made to me, for I have felt the lash of discrimination and that sensitivity is plainly visible. So the more rules to me, the more likely I will not remember them all and stumble and be expelled for a year. And if I am subjected to extreme humiliation, such as mocking or riducule, or being bullied or ganged up on, or being subjected to antisemitic defamation as being a Jew, I can not rememeber all the rules to me even more so and fall into posting more than 3 consecutive posts, eventually....
Lou
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:07:26
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
Okay, I was just about to write a post that said "huh?" But I think I get you now. Have you ever revealed this 'neurological affliction' here before? It makes you make a lot more sense, if that makes any sense.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:09:51
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
You know, I totally understand why ALOT of people here would post compulsively. I know I have when upset. Why is that wrong. Isn't this place to help people with their afflictions?
-T
Posted by TexasChic on August 17, 2006, at 20:12:28
In reply to Lou's response to TexasChick's post-Lou's anomol;y » TexasChic, posted by Lou Pilder on August 17, 2006, at 20:03:07
>In examining all what is behind this rule, I have not yet posted what I think is plainly visible as to why this rule was made here. Tyhis could be so shocking that I have waited to this time to post what is plainly visible.
Are you saying you think you are the reason for this rule??-T
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.