Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 12:00:40
In reply to yes, but it's Dr. Bob's call, ultimately » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 23, 2007, at 11:23:32
> Sure, Lou ( and nice to see you back, BTW) all those things your wrote "could be." However, Dr. Bob decided Babble needed the rule when he created it and now we have it.
>
> I believe he feels it's best for the community as a whole to limit these things to three in a row. Perhaps he'll be willing to engage in dialog about that rule again now or in the future - and you or others could try to convince him to change it? :-)Deputy 10derheart,
You wrote,[...all those things you wrote could be...he needed the rule...best for the community as a whole...]
I ask,
A. Do you know what is shown here to indicate that he {needed} the rule? If you do, could you post it here now? If not,could you post why not here?
B. You believe that he thinks that the rule is best for the commmunity as a whole. Do you believe that the rule is best for the community as a whole? If so, are you aware of the historical parallels to that type of rule? And also, how could the rule be best for the community as a whole if there is a way to take three posts that do not have another member's name in between, and consolodate them into one post? Is there not a way to do that?
You see, if you wanted to, could you not take the three posts and combine them with the name of the member only once? Or could not the administration show how the members could do that on their own? What do you mean by a {need} here?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:802069
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/802248.html