Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 17:14:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-lezkon » Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on June 18, 2011, at 16:55:44
> Lou, this is silly.
>
> I have always assumed....in fact I have jumped to the conclusion.....how else was I to arrive at it?......that the 3 post rule had nothing to do with less confident posters.
>
> It was a rule designed with you in mind.
>
> I realise I have broken a rule by saying this, but can't see the harm in it.
>
> You believe it, surely? I do too. But we are not allowed to say it.
>
> But maybe it was necessary? (Now we're back to the good of the community and organic notions of society and Nazi Germany.)
>
> I wasn't here then, so I don't have an opinion.
>
> Anyway, people are often prepared to help out with a response so you can keep posting. I do it.Sigismund,
You wrote,[...the 3 consecutive post rule had nothing to do with less confident posters...it was a rule designed (redacted by respondent...].
Now the rule stops me from teaching in my style. I had posted that I did not want anyone to just post to start the consecutive posts over unless one had a want to be a discussant in the thread.
Now can you see some of the rest of this? If not, could you do a search about the Nuremburg Laws and see what is in those laws about teaching?
You see, if I was allowed to post more than 3 consecutive posts here, I could teach others what IMHHO could save their lives or prevent then from getting a life-ruining condition. That is support, is it not? And the forum is for support and education, is it not?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:984958
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/988697.html