![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 3 of 3. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 7:51:20
DR. Hsiung,
In response to your invitation here that it is fine to discuss your actions or policy here,and to ask for your rationales for such,the following.
My concern now is the rule made here that says something like that one can not post more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in a thread and that there are exceptions to that rule here. I would like this discussion to keep in mind the rationale stated in your TOS/FAQ as to the conception of the rule as something like the following:
More than 3 consecutive posts;
A.may discourage >less confident posters< from joining in
B.gives them more of a >chance<
C.makes it easier for them to {help}
D.they can {feel good} doing so.
Then there are exceptions listed. The exception that I am requesting clarification for is:
[...Responding to earlier posts{one at a time}...] My next post wil go into my request for clarification to you concerning that exception here.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 9:02:10
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for clarification-ex3, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 7:51:20
> DR. Hsiung,
> In response to your invitation here that it is fine to discuss your actions or policy here,and to ask for your rationales for such,the following.
> My concern now is the rule made here that says something like that one can not post more than 3 consecutive follow-ups in a thread and that there are exceptions to that rule here. I would like this discussion to keep in mind the rationale stated in your TOS/FAQ as to the conception of the rule as something like the following:
> More than 3 consecutive posts;
> A.may discourage >less confident posters< from joining in
> B.gives them more of a >chance<
> C.makes it easier for them to {help}
> D.they can {feel good} doing so.
> Then there are exceptions listed. The exception that I am requesting clarification for is:
> [...Responding to earlier posts{one at a time}...] My next post wil go into my request for clarification to you concerning that exception here.
> Lou PilderDR. Hsiung,
Let us consider a hypothetical example with 2 posters and a respondent
PosterA posts XXX
PosterB posts YYY
Now the respondent posts in the following manner one at a time to the two posters:
respondent's response to poster A>>respondent
respondent's response to poster B>>respondent
respondent's response to poster A>>respondent
respondent's response to poster B>>respondent
respondent's response to poster A>>respondent
I am requesting that you clatify your rule that says that if one here responds to earlier posts one at a time that example, even though it has more than 3 consecutive post by the same poster, could be an exception to your rule as to if the above hypothetical example could be an exception to your rule.
If so, then if there are two other posters in a thread , I could have the opportunity to use that example if possible in posting more than 3 consecutive posts in the threads where I would like to post to posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings where my need to respond to them could mean that I might need to post more than 3 consecutive posts without waiting for another member to post after I post 3 consecutive posts. If this example in your opinion does not meet the exception stated by you in your TOS, could you clarify why it does not?
Lou Pilder
>
Posted by Glydin on March 30, 2007, at 5:52:51
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for clarification-B, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2007, at 9:02:10
> > Lou wrote: "I could have the opportunity to use that example if possible in posting more than 3 consecutive posts in the threads where I would like to post to posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings where my need to respond to them could mean that I might need to post more than 3 consecutive posts without waiting for another member to post after I post 3 consecutive posts."
~~~ Lou,
Why? I would like to understand why a poster would post in separate consecutive posts given the length of one single post is not limited here. I admit, I do not understand.
Again, I urge no further exceptions to the three post guidelines. My opinion is: this guideline helps prevent one poster from monopolizing a thread as defined as: "to get a monopoly of - assume complete possession or control of." Preventing monopolization, IMO, allows for a discussion and interaction.
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.