Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:53:58
In reply to 3-post Rools, posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 9:44:44
ll
You wrote,[...I would like to have a source to consult (about the rule)...]
In the 3 consecutive posts rule, I can understand your concern becuse it is in many posts.
One aspect from my view is that there was something I think about [...in the same day...]
So that could also be part of the rule. That would make sense, for the purpose stated for the rule is that time must be allowed for others to join in? If that is so, then if a day passes, there was allowed time for others to join in and they did not. Thearfore , since they were offered the time to join in and did not, then it goes to say that the poster has satified their obligation to wait and can proceed since they waited. If this was not the case, then the rule could be used to prevent someone from speaking, and that is not civil even by the rules here, for it is uncivil to tell someone that they can not post, unless it is to them in the do- not- post -to -me rule.
If you would like further clarification from my view, please ask.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:677002
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/677057.html