Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 13:45:58
In reply to Lou's reply to deputy 10der-ultmot? » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2007, at 12:00:40
> > 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
>
>
Deputy 10derheart,
You wrote,[...best for the community...to limit...to 3 in a row...]
Let us look at what can be seen here about this rule made here. Could not one here have an affiliate of theirs to post a post that did not have a message in it after the member's name can be seen three times without another member's name in between, just to satisfy the rule? If so, then is it not the {appearance} of the member's name more than 3 times without another member's name in between, the issue concerning the rule's reason to be made?
You see, I could have someone do that for me, but I have opted not to do that for reasons that I can discuss by email to those that would like.
But there is a {need} now by me to post about a member's post concerning what the bible says or does not say about suicide. If what I could post could have the potential to save a life from a suicide in using, let's say, 7 posts without another member's name in between, would I not be considered by the administartion here to be uncivil? If so, why? I would be offering support and education. If the rule prevents me from offering what I could to have the potential IMO to save a life, then is the rule in your opinion consistant with the mission of the forum as being supportive and promoting of education? If so, could you post here how that could be so?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:802069
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/802263.html