![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 22:10:31
Please revoke the three post rule.
I need to post more than three posts.
It's hurricane season.
Sometimes people need to post more than three posts.
Posted by muffled on June 12, 2006, at 22:44:43
In reply to Dr. Bob?, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 22:10:31
> Please revoke the three post rule.
>
> I need to post more than three posts.
>
> It's hurricane season.
>
> Sometimes people need to post more than three posts.***Ohmygosh ((((Dinah))) :-(
I'm so sorry.
It must be very frightening for you :-(
Has anyone ever been blocked for that?
Please take special care.
Muffled
Posted by llrrrpp on June 13, 2006, at 3:53:22
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by muffled on June 12, 2006, at 22:44:43
I couldn't find 3-post rule on the FAQ.
Is it a rule, punishable by sanctions, OR
is it a common courtesy?I have frequently felt tempted to break the 3 post rule. Instead, I write rediculously looooonggggg posts, and I also put posts on multiple boards- writing, relationships, social, psychology, psycho-babble, etc.
Dinah, hang in there
(((((Dinah)))))
I think you should break it. just go for it. If you need it, it's more important than common courtesy.
-ll
Posted by Toph on June 13, 2006, at 9:47:02
In reply to Dr. Bob?, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2006, at 22:10:31
I thought it was 3 *consecutive* posts. Did anyone ever say you couldn't make more than 3 posts?
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2006, at 9:56:36
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob?, posted by llrrrpp on June 13, 2006, at 3:53:22
It's a rule, with sanctions.
Posted by Dinah on June 13, 2006, at 9:57:25
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by Toph on June 13, 2006, at 9:47:02
It is three consecutive posts. But sometimes... Well, never mind. I put myself to bed instead.
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 13, 2006, at 16:57:26
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob? » llrrrpp, posted by Dinah on June 13, 2006, at 9:56:36
Dinah,
Please refresh my memory whether or not there is a TIME element involved. In other words, could a person post three times in a row on a subject if the posts were days or weeks apart?
Sometimes the boards are slow and no one responds.
MidnightBlue
> It's a rule, with sanctions.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:45:52
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob?, posted by MidnightBlue on June 13, 2006, at 16:57:26
> Please refresh my memory whether or not there is a TIME element involved.
As it was originally promulgated, anyway, time wasn't a factor. Do you think it should be?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2006, at 9:51:45
In reply to Re: TIME element, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:45:52
It wouldn't change what I'm talking about.
When you're alone and scared and nobody's around to talk to you so you have to talk to yourself.
What's so evil about that, Dr. Bob?
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 14, 2006, at 10:44:30
In reply to Re: TIME element, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:45:52
Well then Dr. Bob, I guess you should block/deport me whatever because I have three posts in a row on the health board. Dinah and I have been posting back and forth to each other to encourage weight loss. Sometimes Dinah doesn't answer back. Those posts are usually a week apart, we sort of had a regular "check in" day.
But if TIME is not a consideration, then I'm busted.
MidnightBlue
> > Please refresh my memory whether or not there is a TIME element involved.
>
> As it was originally promulgated, anyway, time wasn't a factor. Do you think it should be?
>
> Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2006, at 11:00:04
In reply to Re: TIME element » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 14, 2006, at 10:44:30
Oooh, never say I have been that remiss as to let three weeks go by! I'm sorry, MidnightBlue. I promise never to let you get busted on that thread. :)
Posted by zazenduck on June 14, 2006, at 11:00:22
In reply to Re: TIME element » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 14, 2006, at 10:44:30
can you make 3 threads in a row of 3 posts each?
there are also 17 boards so you could redirect yourself after 3. i don't think it is sanctionable to post on the wrong topic board.
this would enable either 51 or if 3 consecutive threads are legal that would be 153 posts
and then you could answer others posts and go back into the archives and answer 3 posts on other threads I'm sure no one would mind.Your welcome to answer any onf my posts in any way you want as many times as you want. I googled myself for about 80 posts so 3 replies to each of those would be 240 just for me
Or bob could change the rule.....nahh that's way too easy
zazen duck
living in a 360 degree cone of projection-I could take off in any direction :)
Posted by zazenduck on June 14, 2006, at 11:51:34
In reply to Re: threads or posts?, posted by zazenduck on June 14, 2006, at 11:00:22
> can you make 3 threads in a row of 3 posts each?
I think so based on GG's post above
>
> this would enable 153 posts self-initiated posts without reply
Or should the rules be changed for people in areas where an emergency is declared?
Sure I think that would be compassionate.I would go so far as to include personal emergencies too not just national disasters.
Thanks for bringing this topic up.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 14, 2006, at 14:05:28
In reply to Re: TIME element, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2006, at 9:45:52
I could swear that it was within a 24 hour period. But I could be wrong.
gg
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2006, at 15:44:46
In reply to Re: threads or posts?, posted by zazenduck on June 14, 2006, at 11:51:34
I'm sure you realize I was calling for complete repeal of the rule. Not just for me, but for everyone. And that particular aspect of the rule was always a problem for me, as was diaries and any other number of times when someone shouldn't be penalized for posting more than three posts in a row.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 23:03:41
In reply to Re: threads or posts? » zazenduck, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2006, at 15:44:46
> if TIME is not a consideration, then I'm busted.
>
> MidnightBlueDo you think it should be a consideration?
--
> When you're alone and scared and nobody's around to talk to you so you have to talk to yourself.
>
> What's so evil about that, Dr. Bob?> that particular aspect of the rule was always a problem for me, as was diaries and any other number of times when someone shouldn't be penalized for posting more than three posts in a row.
>
> DinahI never meant to imply that it was evil. How about chatting with oneself instead?
What particular aspect of the rule? I think diaries would be an exception:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/397833.html
What might others be? I think it's a good idea to try to anticipate them...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:15:27
In reply to Re: threads or posts?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 23:03:41
Well, since I think the rule should be repealed, it's difficult of me to think of good exceptions to it. Perhaps some good ideas, other than repeal, will come from others.
Chatting with oneself is just *not* the same, Dr. Bob. Have you ever chatted to yourself?
Besides if you post to yourself, someone will eventually see it and respond. If you chat to yourself it just disappears.
I think evil was probably an overstatement. But why is it uncivil? Are the costs of the site that much higher if someone posts four posts in a row? What is the rationale behind making it uncivil?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 13:01:10
In reply to Re: threads or posts? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2006, at 23:15:27
> if you post to yourself, someone will eventually see it and respond. If you chat to yourself it just disappears.
You could post that you're chatting with yourself?
> I think evil was probably an overstatement. But why is it uncivil?
Because it doesn't promote sharing of the boards?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 13:03:33
In reply to Re: threads or posts?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 13:01:10
Are the boards a limited commodity?
How about people like me who respond to many posts. Do you consider that they aren't promoting sharing of the boards?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 15:29:38
In reply to Re: threads or posts? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 21, 2006, at 13:03:33
> How about people like me who respond to many posts. Do you consider that they aren't promoting sharing of the boards?
I think it's fine to post a lot as long as one takes turns.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 15:45:19
In reply to Re: threads or posts?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2006, at 15:29:38
Taking turns is a good thing. But does it really apply here?
Are there times when it feels as if multiple posts in a row by one poster prevents anyone else from posting?
Is there a sense of limited space here that must be divided up in some way?
I've never had those feelings. At worst, having multiple posts and even multiple threads just makes me have to scroll a bit more. I can handle that. I may feel annoyed about that every once in awhile, but that's more a function of my own limited capacity for patience versus anyone else doing anything wrong.
So I ask this rather naively but with all sincerity, since the idea is hard for me to wrap my brain around. Is there a problem about turn-taking here?
Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences.
gg
Posted by muffled on June 21, 2006, at 18:58:38
In reply to Does anyone here feel they can't get a post in?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 15:45:19
Posted by 10derHeart on June 21, 2006, at 20:46:02
In reply to Does anyone here feel they can't get a post in?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 15:45:19
Posted by 10derHeart on June 21, 2006, at 20:47:39
In reply to Nope. Never been a problem. (nm) » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on June 21, 2006, at 20:46:02
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2006, at 16:47:06
In reply to Does anyone here feel they can't get a post in?, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 15:45:19
> At worst, having multiple posts and even multiple threads just makes me have to scroll a bit more. I can handle that. I may feel annoyed about that every once in awhile, but that's more a function of my own limited capacity for patience versus anyone else doing anything wrong.
I've redirected a reply to the original thread about this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/674603.html
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the 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.