Posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 12:04:34
In reply to Lou's response to Larry Hoover's block-abolu, posted by Lou Pilder on July 12, 2005, at 11:43:00
> Friends,
> Larry Hoover has been requierd to be blocked from posting for 6 weeks here. What are the issues here?
> The issues posted are those that could be of the rule . But could I ask you to consider if the rule is a sound mental-health practice or not?
> Let us look at the origin of the rule and what could have promted its formulation.
> There was a group of posters here that objected to me requesting clarification. I think that the requests are important for dialog, and invite you to go back into the archives and see.
> Dr. Hsiung then proposed the [...do not post to me...] rule.
> But the rule prohibits me from requesting anything to a poster, or even replying to a poster, for I remember a post that asked if one could write something like,[...good post...] to a poster that invoked the [...do not post to me...]rule to them and I think that I remember that there was a reply by Dr. Hsiung about that.
> With that in mind, I will now proceed with a series that I would like to give so that you can make a decision on your own as to if having the rule on a mental-health community is a sound mental-health practice or not. If the rule is abolished, then Larry could return to the forum. And if the rule is abolished, then I could request clarification from others also.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
If we look at what could happen if the rule is abolished here, then;
A. Lou, or anyone else here, would be able to request clarification from anyone about what they wrote and no one could prevent him from doing so.
B. Larry Hoover would be immediatly reinstated and the block expunged from his, and other's, records here.
C. Those that object to me, or anyone else here, requesting clarification to them would have to find some other way to deal with my requests.
D. Those that want to keep a particular poster from replying to them in a civil manner could not do so.
E. Some posters here could leave and go to another board where they can keep a particular person from replying to them.
F. The 3 consecutive post rule could be looked at as to if it also is a sound mental-health practice or not.
G. The 3 posts about requesting a determination about a particular poster's posts could be looked at as to if it is a sound mental-health practice or not here.
H. If the rule was abolished by Dr. Hsiung, then could there be the potential for othere to think that the rule is an unsound mental- health practice as being on a mental-health internet forum?
K. If the rule is abolished, then could there be the potential for some others to think that the lines of communication to remain open, in a mental-health community, could be more important than a poster's invocation of a rule that cuts those lines?
M. other good and just ramifications if the rule is abolished.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:523749
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/526702.html