![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 149 to 173 of 291. Go back in thread:
Posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:43:59
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
i like your attitude, jane! glad you feel better.:) i've looked back over some of these posts..people sure are making a huge deal out of this..i don't think it'll be too hard to keep it down to 3 consecutive posts..this is not some big tragedy..and we are allowed to still respond to posts in a consecutive manner, which is a great aspect of the rule that makes good sense..so, i mean, if this person refuses to change his posting behavior, and it has a negative impact on the forum and its utility, then i am in favor of the rule, as it seems necessary..although i might up it to 4 consecutive posts, instead of 3..yes, this might negatively impact 1 or 2 people maybe, but it seems that not having the rule will negatively impact many more people, due to people's questions not getting answered due to high turnover, for instance..
take care,:)
amy
Posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:53:53
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!!, posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:43:59
i do think an attempt to resolve this issue with the poster first without adding a rule would be a good idea. but this attempt was probably already made, i'm guessing..
Posted by TofuEmmy on September 30, 2004, at 0:10:22
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » alesta, posted by just plain jane on September 29, 2004, at 20:31:48
Re: point #4. Um....ok...um....OK, Ill count to 10 first. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10,
Um......Ok, Bob, I'll rephrase that. Um...OK, I'll be civil!! Oh my dog, that man is in my head!! HELP!I give up.
emmy
Posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 0:36:54
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!!, posted by alesta on September 29, 2004, at 23:53:53
perhaps instead of blocking people, when someone surpasses a certain amount of posts (3 or 4), accidentally or otherwise, dr. bob, you could just post "redirect: surpassed the posting limit" and just redirect the post to a new board specifically for excess consecutive posts (i'm not sure what you would call it). this way, it serves the same purpose, but no one has to fear being blocked or whatever...what do you think, dr. bob? i don't know..just a suggestion..i will support whatever decision you make on this issue..i think this idea might even be easier to implement, maybe
amy:)
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 1:28:23
In reply to Lou's reply to jpj-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2004, at 22:46:44
Lou,
it is capitalized because the word, in the context of my thoughts, bore a major emphasis in my mind. i held down the Shift key when I typed it. Therefore, it was capitalized.
No response is required, Lou, though you are free to do so if you please.
jpj
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:06:24
In reply to i have a great idea! -- dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 0:36:54
alesta,
You wrote,[...redirect surpassed the posting limit...].
I think that is a great idea, alesta. I think that you are indicating that there is no harm donr by posting more then 3 posts, and that any blocking for such would,IYO, not be warrented. Instead, you offer your alternitve.
I like your suggeation to the administration here, and wholeheartedly support your ideas.
I do not think that another board would be appropriate, but it is your thought that 4 posts vs 3 posts or 7 posts, I guess, is not something that should carry some sort of penalty here to.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:25:08
In reply to i have a great idea! -- dr. bob, posted by alesta on September 30, 2004, at 0:36:54
alesta,
I like your idea to not block posters for 4 or more posts, but to redirect to some unknown board might not be the best solution, although it is your thought that counts to me here.
How about the following instead.
Suppose when a poster goes over 3 posts, the moderator write, "3-hour halt".
This would mean that for the next 3 hours, the poster in question could not post at all on any board. Any thoughts?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:36:36
In reply to capitalization of ignore » Lou Pilder, posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 1:28:23
jpj,
Thank you for your explanation. What I want to rule out here is that there is the potential for some people to think that the putting of a word in capitals could have the potential to mean that there is a call to others to do what the word in capitals imports. In this case, the word is, "ignore".
Thank you for clearing that up that that is not what your intention was, but perhaps you were trying to {tell me} that there is the potential for people to ignore me on their own, {not that you are advocating that peope do that.}
Lou
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
In reply to capitalization of ignore » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:36:36
There are no rules here that are consistently and equally enforced so why bother trying? If you break one of Hsuing's suggestions say you're sorry and the rule won't be enforced except when it is enforced which is a random event not influenced by your behaviour just Hsuing's whims. No problem!
Posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 9:26:34
In reply to Support, posted by Toph on September 23, 2004, at 17:29:51
Perhaps one positive spin on this whole thing is that while we all may not agree that the new rule is the best solution, Dr. Bob heard his constituents complain about a disruptive (or is it just annoying, I'm not sure which) posting style and he responded. This makes the dictatorship seem more democratic. Good groups evolve, static groups become cliques.
Posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:29:04
In reply to Re: BOB the post in question » RosieOGrady, posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2004, at 22:07:31
I feel like I am the object of her verbal *******. I do not think anything I did could cause her neck to snap. Why did she direct this post to me? I feel accused. Please determine if that is true and act appropriately. Thanks
> Wow, that was fast. I think my neck snapped.
> gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 30, 2004, at 9:30:03
In reply to Re: holey moley.. Yes Indeed!!!! » just plain jane, posted by TofuEmmy on September 30, 2004, at 0:10:22
for your message! I wouldn't have put it nearly as well and .......
better quit while I'm ahead
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 9:26:34
Toph,
You wrote,[constitionency...a disruptive (or is it annoying, I'm not sure which posting style...].
If I am the poster with the posting style in question, then I do not think that my posting style is either disruptive or annoying.
There are posters here that have also agreed with me in respect to that.
I feel put down when I read that my posting is disruptive. To me, disruption in respect to this situation, could mean that I am doing some bad thing by posting here. I do not belive that my posting here is any sort of bad thing.
Lou
Posted by TofuEmmy on September 30, 2004, at 9:47:50
In reply to There are no rules here! Calm down folks! pt1.0573, posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
If I were any calmer, I'd be asleep. But thank you for your concern! :-)
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 9:54:11
In reply to capitalization of ignore » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 8:36:36
Lou,
Emphasizing the word was my intent, not suggesting it to others.
The emphasis is/was intended simply as you said "you were trying to {tell me} that there is the potential for people to ignore me on their own", which, I am guessing, is not what you desire. Actually, just to remind you, a little friendly nudge, if you will.
I know I sometimes get carried away in my own ways, I'm certain we all do, and it can be helpful (among other things :)) to have a nudge for a "self-check".
simply,
just plain jane
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 9:58:02
In reply to There are no rules here! Calm down folks! pt1.0573, posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
Ditto, Rosie!
Thanks!!!
Hope your day is great!
just plain jane
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:11
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
Toph,
You wrote, [..heard his constituants complain...disruptive(or annoying...not sure which...}.
If you are referring to m posting style, then there were others that are also in this constituancy that wrote something different of being disruptive or annoying. Below is one such post by New Wife on SEptember 23, 2004:
"i appreciate evrything you have to say. i enjoyed reading your posts. If your anything like me, you hit that send button and then only after, think of something else to write. you seen very smart and willing to communicate with others in this huge ans sometimes confusing world. have a great day and keep writing."
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394311.html
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:23
In reply to Re: Support, posted by Toph on September 30, 2004, at 9:26:34
Thanks, Toph
just plain jane
Posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 10:10:01
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 9:43:02
Lou,
I can sympathize with your feeling put down, however, someone else's statement that your style is disruptive or annoying is simply their statement, their opinion.
I hope for you that you may be able to just accept people's comments as that, their opinions.
If you desire further discussion with me on this subject, lets move it to Social.
just plain jane
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 10:12:53
In reply to There are no rules here! Calm down folks! pt1.0573, posted by RosieOGrady on September 30, 2004, at 9:24:38
> There are no rules here that are consistently and equally enforced so why bother trying? If you break one of Hsuing's suggestions say you're sorry and the rule won't be enforced except when it is enforced which is a random event not influenced by your behaviour just Hsuing's whims. No problem!
Hi Rosie.Which rules do you find are enforced with the least consistency?
- Scott
Posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 10:19:02
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post-2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:00:11
I think your posting style is jut fine. It doesn't bother me one whit.
I also really appreciate your scrupulous sticking to the intent rather than the letter of the new rule.
And wasn't I right about Scott (SLS)? He's such a love. :)
Feel free to respond to my posts with as many posts as you like, and I won't do it to circumvent the rules, but I'll be happy to post just to converse with you.
Would you mind if I gave you a cyberhug? This can't be easy for you. ((((Lou))))
I posted something a long time ago about how this sort of thing made me sad, but I think I see a few things that make me happy this time. Do you?
I'm trying not to post till I get my registration straightened back out, but my email is still the same and it should work fine for you. If you'd like to talk to me about the things (and people) that make me (and hopefully you) happy this time, I'd love to hear from you. I'm a bit busy today and will be gone quite a bit, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can if you'd like to converse that way.
And hopefully Dr. Bob will be by soon.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:21:27
In reply to Re: capitalization of ignore » Lou Pilder, posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 9:54:11
jpj,
You wrote,[...emphasizing the word was my intent, not suggesting it to others...].
Yes, that is what I wanted to know when I asked you why the word, "ignore' was in all caps. I wanted to rule out the potential for any misunderstanding and I am glad that you were just emphisizing the word for reasons that you have explained.
You see, in some cases, the putting of a word in all capitals could have the potential to be considered by some to be a suggestion and that is why I asked for you to rule that out, and you did.
You wrote,[...I know I sometimes get carried away in my own ways...].
I appreciate you making that point, for all we like humans can be carried away...].
You wrote,[...to have a nudge for a self-check...].
If this means that you were indicating that others could ignore me if I was to continue posting in more than 3 consecutive posts, could you give me some more infomation on that that could cause that to happen? If you meant something else, could you say what you meant by the statement in question if it is not that? If you could, then I could have a better understanding a towhat you mean and be able to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:34:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Toph's post » Lou Pilder, posted by just plain jane on September 30, 2004, at 10:10:01
jpj,
You wrote, [...I can sympathize with you feeling put down...]
Thank you for you understanding of my feelings in regards to the word, "disruptive" or "annoying" being associated with my style of posting.
You wrote, [...I hope ...you may be able...to accoept peoples comments on that, their opinions...].
If you are saying that people can write that my posting style is disruptive or annoying and have that protected as being stated as "an opinion", then I disagree. Could someone write, " It is my opinion that so and so is a idiot?
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 30, 2004, at 10:45:24
In reply to Lou's response to jpj-symp » just plain jane, posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:34:08
> jpj,
> You wrote, [...I can sympathize with you feeling put down...]
> Thank you for you understanding of my feelings in regards to the word, "disruptive" or "annoying" being associated with my style of posting.
> You wrote, [...I hope ...you may be able...to accoept peoples comments on that, their opinions...].
> If you are saying that people can write that my posting style is disruptive or annoying and have that protected as being stated as "an opinion", then I disagree. Could someone write, " It is my opinion that so and so is a idiot?
> Lou
Hi guys.I think we can all see that adjudicating the use of words to determine civility can be extremely difficult.
In my opinion, Dr. Bob has a pretty tough job. It is probably more of an art than it is a science. Precision must be a very difficult goal to achieve.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 30, 2004, at 10:58:59
In reply to Re: Hi Lou, Dinah here, posted by Dinahmari on September 30, 2004, at 10:19:02
Hi Dinah,
I am glad to be with you here again.
You wrote,[...wasn't I right about Scott?...He's such a love.):...].
Yes, I am glad to have discussion with Scott, he is stimulating to converse with. Could this be the same Scott that I met 5 years ago? hummmmm
Lou
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.