Posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2004, at 22:49:36
In reply to Dr BOB PLEASEchek this post, posted by RosieOGrady on September 28, 2004, at 21:13:08
Dr.Hsiung,
When the poster wrote, [..you can talk to me if you like...] after my 3erd post, that would mean that if I did post again, that:
A. It would be my 4th consecutive post
B. My first post [if we consider Rosie's post to constitute a break in the consecutivness.]
Scott has pointed out that he sees that I would be circumventing the rule if I was to reply to Rosie and he agreed with me in my declining Rosie's offer to talk to her, for he sees that as circumventing the rule and breaking the spirit of the rule.
I agree with Scott, and just because Rosie says that I could talk to her, I do not think that the invitation to talk to her allows me to do so without breaking the rule and Scott sees the same. If her post does allow me to talk to her, then it also means that I could talk to Larry or anyone else because the 3 consecutive posts would start over if this is allowed. I do not think that this should be allowed and niether does Scott. I think that for Rosie to have a valid post to allow me to start over , her post would have to be something contributing to the discussion, not just an invitation to talk to her. She also could have started a new thread about something and inviting me to be a discussant in it. She could have replied to another in the thread or made a general comment in the thread.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:396564
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/396618.html