Posted by Sobriquet Style on August 14, 2006, at 6:07:59
In reply to Re: Lou's suggestion, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 17:17:34
I had an idea whilst reading through this discussion, it may or may not be helpful, or something that can be used, but I thought i'd share the idea with you in case its something that might help.
When writing 3 posts in a row, instead using something like microsoft word or notepad, you could write the post on the word processor, like a draft copy, then when you have gathered your thoughts on the subject, post the entire topic and body of the post that would usually take up 3 or more posts, into one.
Heres an example using 7 of your recent posts, condensed into one:
Friends,
Please note that in my requests for a determination, I do not consider that a request is an {objection}, although Dr. Hsiung may, to what is requested to be determined as to the accepatbility or not in relation the guidlines of the forum. My requests, to me, are for me to have more definition and clarification about the rules so that more definition could be given to support, for I can not read the mind of the rule-maker,and IMO requesting definition as to if the statement in question is acceptable or not does not mean that it is a complaint, for the request is to see what the maker of the rule considers to be acceptable or not {in relation to his guidlines of his rules for the forum}. I can not know his or anyone else's mind without asking.
As to what he says is or is not acceptable, is what I am asking for, and it is my deep conviction that one should not be sanctioned for {not knowing} if the rule maker considers something acceptable or not about his rules.
Now the new rule ,as I see it, has not been put into the FAQ yet? If it becomes a rule, or has already been put in the FAQ, then it is concievable that posts that have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, or be defaming to me, could be left on the board indefiniatly without my request for Dr. Hsiung to determine if the statement is acceptable or not, ever being seen on the forum to the members, am I right? This is because I can not, according to the new rule, email my concern as a request to him to see if the statement in question, in his thinking, has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings if the poster is one that I have made 3 requests to Dr. Hsiung in the past.
So concievably, {those posters} could post what could be seen to have the potential to accuse Jews and defame Jews without me being able to email Dr. Hsiung about it, because I have already used up my 3 requests according to the new rule. And looking at the new rule, is there anything given to continue to receive an answer to your request after the last opportunity which is to post a request to look at his email afte ,I guess, 5 days or so have already run and the statement has stood for that long without a reply?
I do not feel confortable with that kind of rule, for I do not think that it is supportive or civil to let stand for one minuet, yet 5 days or more any statements that could foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on this forum.
Lou PilderFriends,
I am requesting your consideration as to if you think that what I will propose here is or is not a better way to handle the situation that caused the {3} rule to arrise.
I think that it is supportive to have clarification of rules in any community and that the administrative forum is for that purpose. So Thay could mean that the administartive forum is not for support, but it could be.
SO I suggeat that my views be considerd as in the following.
If I was the rule-maker, I would not want to restrict inquieries for any reason, although others may think that restraning inquieries is supportive. But be it as it may be, and taking into account that some others may think that it is uncivil to request determination over 3 to one member, I propose a solution for a new rule.
My new rule would take into acct that the restricting of the number of requests to some people could be uin some way a time issue with them. I can understand that, but at the same time, I would not want to keep anyone's request from being heard. So If there are to be restrictions as to the number of requests, the the criteria that I suggeat for the request to {not count as being in the 3} to have the following critria.
A.That the request has a proper foundation only.
This means that if a request can show that there is more than one interpretation, that the request is to be honored. This can be done by posting a previous post to bring that out.
B. That if there is in the past practice a post that has been sanctioned, that that is a proper foundation to be honored.
C. If the post has {in the opinion of the poster}the potential to arrouse ill-will toward anyone or a group, that that could be a proper foundation to be honored.
now I agree that if a request id frivolous, that that is another thing. But at the same time, I do not consider any request to find out what the rule-maker thinking is, to be frivilous for the requester can not know what the thinking is of the rule maker without asking.
Now if someone had absolutly no foundation for the request, then I tend to lean that that request is also valid, and I know that others may disagree here with me, but the lacking of a foundation could show something that time and space do not allow me to go into here at the moment that could foster support.
LouFriends,
Here is an example of my proposal.
Poster A posts
Hey evrybody, how about if we have a sky-diving club here of babblers?
Poster B writes,
Skydiving is bullcr*p.(the poster does not use the star)
Poster C posts a request for a determination on what poster B posted as to if it is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum
Dr. Hsiung writes back and asks the poster, C, what the foundation is to allow the request.
Poster C cites the clause about not posting language that could offend others.
Now here I would tend to think that a discussion about this has a proper foundation , for a resonable person could think that the word is in the catagory of {language that could offend others}.
Then Dr. Hsiung writes back,
I see that it could invoke your inquierey, but my thinking is that that word does not fall into the catagory {here} of language that could offend others.
Or Dr. Hsiung could agree with the poster.
Either way, the poster could have thought that he needed to know Dr. Hsiung's thinking and had a foundation to ask.
LouRacer,
You wrote,[...to now be emailed...]
First, is this new rule in the FAQ or still under discussion?
LouRacer,
You wrote,[...to now be emailed...]
First, is this new rule in the FAQ or still under discussion?
LouFriends,
Let us remember back when this came up. There was something about 100 posts.
What that referred to is that there was a topic that was so comprehensive, that I wrote thsat I would need 100 posts to cover it. I did not mean that I was telling others that they could not post, for that would not be in accordance with the guidlines of the forum, ie to tell other that they can not post.
So all that meant was that it could be a long topic, like the Effexor thread.
Then there is the issue of that people do not have to enter a thread, nor do they have to read what is in it.
So the proposal is...(next post)
Lou
Friends,The limitation to only 3 consecutive posts can now be seen in the thread above this one.
Notice that I am posting my reply to Racer and that 3 consecutive posts have happened. But I would like to reply to more about her post to me and can't untill someone else enters the thread. Thearfore I am stopped from saying what I could say which could have the potential to foster support and education. Why limit support and education here? This is one of the reasons that I am ofering way to satisfy those that want me to stop posting after 3 posts, which will follow if someone posts here, since as I am typing, I have 3 consecutive posts..
Lou
Good luck on your quest.~
poster:Sobriquet Style
thread:676096
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/676264.html