Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2008, at 14:29:45
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-fheighlgud, posted by Lou Pilder on April 15, 2008, at 11:29:01
> > > > What I would like, Lou, is for the Administration to have a prize for the person who has stopped the most threads.
> > > > I would hope to win it.
> > > >
> > > > But Lou
> > > > What did you mean by this?....
> > > > >If you are wanting to make your rule here so as to accommodate the less-confident member, could you not also make rules to accomodate, let's say, the less grammatically informed member or members that are less-active that post maybe once a day?
> > > >
> > > > Do you think that 'the less gramatically informed members' have not been accommodated here?
> > >
> > > Sigismund,
> > > You wrote,[...What did you mean by...?]
> > > Let us look at the componants of Mr. Hsiung's rule here concerning if someone posts mor than 3 consecutive posts or three consecutive threads.
> > > (citation devo1)
> > > A. Please {share} this site with others
> > > B.May discourage {less confident} pposters
> > > C.giving them more of a chance
> > > D.makes it easier for them to help
> > > E.and to feel good
> > > I can not find a rule like what Mr. Hsiung has made here except before 1945 in relation to some systems of European government's use of {quotas} that have been ruled many times to be unconstitutional in the U.S. If anyone here can cite a rule like what Mr. Hsiung has made here for this community that is in effect now in some other community, I would like to see it posted here so that I could have the opportunity to respond to it to show if any aspects of it are not consistant with this rule here and that the rule may not involve {expression} as here but may involve time limits that I am aware of but if one posts that kind of rule here , I could respond accordingly.
> > > Let us look at what can be seen in Mr. Hsiung's rule. First, there is the aspect of {sharing}, for he write,[...please {share} this site with {others}...]. It is my opinion that when one reads Mr. Hsiung's rule here that there is the potential for some to think that if one posts 4 consecutive posts, that they are somehow doing something to be thought by some as a person that does not share, or could take away another member's posting, for the generally accepted meaning of {to share} is to divide something up and {not sharing} then could leave someone without what you have or in another meaning one that did not share could be seen IMO in some people's thinking as to be {taking away} something that they did not share that the other person could have. I do not know what Robert Hsiung thinks in relation to how he wants the word {share} to mean here, but I do not feel good when I read his rule here.
> > > You see, I and other members here can not tell another to not post here and since members are free to post, my posting of 4 consecutive posts still allows others to post where they like on any board or in the thread that I am posting in.
> > > This aspect of Robert Hsiung's rule has IMO the potential for some people to use what they read in Mr. Hsiung's rule in their thinking to form a stigmatization of the person posting 4 consecutive posts as being a person that does not share,even if Mr. Hsiung's purpose of writing,[..Please share this site with others...] is different from what IMO could be the potential for some others to form in their minds when they read that about posting more than 3 consecutive posts here, for members are free to post and posting is not timed here.
> > > This has IMO the potential to cast a false light upon me since I have posted more than three consecutive posts and object to the rule being made here that IMO could have the potential for some others to look back and see where I have posted more than three consecutive posts and have the potential IMO for some to think that by me posting more than 3 consecutive posts that I was doing something that was not good for the community as a whole, for Mr. Hsiung writes to trust him as to that he is doing, which could mean the making of the rule, what will be good for the community as a whole. more...
> > > Lou
> > > citation devo1
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#three
> >
> > Sigismund and other interested members,
> > Now let us look at (B), may discourage {less confident } posters
> > In order for my next post to be more understandable, I think that if you look at the link here (citation stwmn), that that could help in haveing a better understanding of the issues involved here in Robert Hsiung's rule that he made here in regards to posting more than 3 consecutive posts.
> > I would like for interested members to look at the part about a {persona] introduced into Mr. Hsiung's rationales for his making of the rule here. Then, if you click on other links in the citation here, other aspects of this could IMO be seen better and we could have more infomation to make a determination on your own concerning aspects of Mr. Hsiung's rule.
> > The {persona} that Mr. Hsiung introduces in his ratioanle is the {less confident} poster, as in (B) above. What are the criteria that determine as to if a person is a {less confident} poster or not? What could be a rationale to make the rule to accommodate that persona as to the claim by Mr. Hsiung that the rule could make {them} >feel good< and be better able to help?
> > Lou
> > citation stwmn
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
> Sigismund and other interested members,
> Let us look at some of the issues involved here in Mr. Hsiung's rule.
> First, let me define my position. My position is to offer support and education as per the mission of this forum. one can look in the archives and se how I was able to uncover what is hidden by breaking down into small increments to reveal the aspect in question. Mr. Hsiung's rule involves the {possibility} of if I was to do that by posting more than 3 consecutive posts that a {discouraging} of a persona, {the less-confident poster} was {possible}. But does that {possibility} overide the support and education mission of the forum in your opinions? If so, could anyone here purporting that to be true, to post here your rationale for such? And also, could there also be a {possibility} that 2 consecutive posts could cause discouragement? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to post a link to show something different from that , from a research base concerning group rules in discussions like we have here. The aspect that there is the possibility of a less confident poster being discouraged is one that I would like to see a citation to support such so that I could have the oportunity to post a response to it.
> The next aspect of Mr. Hsiung's rule is that the rule [...will give more of a chance...]. I can not find any research to go to that and I do not understand how seeing my name, or anyone else's name, 4 times without another poster's name in between cause anyone, including the persona of a less-confident poster, to be discouraged, I guess, to post. This is because it seems to me that if that persona saw 16 names as 2 at a time and 3 at a time, I can not understand how that could be any different in relation to that persona being discouraged. If anyone here could support Mr. Hsiung' resoning here, I welcome you to ppost such here and I will have the opportunity then to respond accordingly.
> Then we have the aspect of that if Mr. Hsiung's next aspect for the rule, to have the rule so that it will {be easier}. Then if {easyness} overides support and education in this case, then could not the concept of {easier} be then applied to all othe aspects of posting here? If not, could anyone that thinks that, post here as to why not? For instance, could not there also be a rule that states that all threads are to be halted once 4 posts are posted so that it will be easier for the less confident poster to post becuae they only see 4 posts? Why is there any difference as to what names are after the post? If anyone can post here ther thinking about this, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Now if things are to be easier, could not there be a rule that states that one could not post more than 3 words in a post that are above the 7th grade level so that it could be easier for the less academically advanced to join in? And could there also not be a rule that states that one can not post a post that has more than, let' say, 20 sentences, so that those that have a less attention span and reading comprehension span could have it easier for them to join in? If you could post here any support for not having that rule, but having the 3 consecutive post rule, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Then Mr. Hsiung states in his rule [...and feel good...]. I would like someone else to comment on that here, if they would like.
> LouMr. Hsiung and friends,
There are concerns of mine in this thread that are of IMO importance to the community. If anyone could respond, I would apppreciate it.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:820778
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/861809.html