Posted by llrrrpp on August 16, 2006, at 13:59:30
In reply to Lou's respopnse to llrrrpp's post » llrrrpp, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 10:53:58
> 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.
> LouI think I understand your point, and I wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes I write something, and then it ferments in my mind and I wish to post an addendum. And what if I needed more addendums, and ended up having a long conversation with myself? that seems that it would be inviolation of the 3 post rule.
Yet, what if i posted to myself, asking myself for clarification, and then i responded to my clarification request?
What if I post to myself, telling me to be more civil, and to rephrase something. And then what if my rephrasal required clarification?
What if I am running around in circles biting my own tail? Surely babble can provide an opportunity for me to revise and resubmit my own opinions, given adequate clock time for other posters to interject?
-ll
poster:llrrrpp
thread:677002
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/677121.html