Should this be allowed?

[Ixtab]

I will give you an example.

[Ixtab]

Double posting.

It clogs up threads. Learn to use 'edit'.

Flynn is the worst perpetrator.

[Hrolf Kraki]

I don't think it's a big deal unless people get into a habit of it.

[John Abney-Hastings]

If it's to correct an error or 'bump' a thread, then no. If it's an update or a new idea seperate from the main point of the first thread, that's okay.

[Ixtab]

If it's ten consecutive one-sentence posts, in answer to ten different people, à la JohnAFlynn, then no, it should be against the rules. It clogs up threads and makes them unnecessarily long.

[Hrolf Kraki]

If it's ten consecutive one-sentence posts, in response to ten different people, à la JohnAFlynn, then no, it should be against the rules.

Oh that shit is ANNOYING! I am in agreeance.

[Ixtab]

He has, in the past, made 20 consecutive posts, most of them only a sentence long, in high-brow discussion forums.

[JohnAFlynn]

He has, in the past, made 20 consecutive posts, most of them only a sentence long, in high-brow discussion forums.

Ye gods, what umbrage! Make him walk the plank! To the Gallows! Assemble a firing squad at dawn!

In all seriousness though, you exaggerate. And you also mislabel it "double-posting." "Double posting would be posting something twice. What you're talking about is when I am reading through a thread, and I find a post I want to respond to, I respond. Five minutes later I may wish to respond to a different post, later in the thread, and I respond. It would be cumbersome and time consuming for me to, as you seem to suggest, read entirely through a thread, and assemble my responses to each post in Microsoft Word, and then make a single, omnibus post responding to everyone. It would also be an unreadably long post, al la Captain Marinesko. I will not subsidize your peculiar thread reading preferences with my time. Your solution is to put me on ignore. Please do so.

[ivory bill]

If it's ten consecutive one-sentence posts, in answer to ten different people, à la JohnAFlynn, then no, it should be against the rules. It clogs up threads and makes them unnecessarily long.

Globus is the worst at that. He will post 10 consecutive one-line posts in response to one.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Here's the thing.

Eventually you can't edit, you can only edit your posts within a certain time period. Like my thread on dictator movies, where it was only really me posting. And so you have to make a new post if you go back and add to it, because its old.

[Björn]

How bout should someone be allowed to post over over a dozen threads in succession? Neo-Galtonian will be happy to demonstrate.:deadhorse:

[Starr]

Globus is the worst at that. He will post 10 consecutive one-line posts in response to one.


:p I was thinking of him when I saw this thread.

I don't really see this(the exact subject of the thread) as a big deal. I will usually try to keep what could be multiple posts contained in one, but sometimes the problem with that is that that one post could get very long and it also seem kind of strange if you are responsding to a few different people, on more than one subject, which happens at times.