11-05-10 bastard

[TakerFoxx]

My understanding of the phrase "double posting" is more than one post to the same person's post. I posted to 3 DIFFERENT people. Perhaps you'd care to quote me the rule against replying to more than one person on a thread, if you would? Or are you saying that I must make only one post if I'm replying to multiple people?

In Rule 2, I note it says "don't be afraid of posting. We want you to post." Should I reduce my number of posts and violate THAT rule?

And yes, thank you, I DID mean Sonya. My error.

Actually, double-posting means posting more than once in a row, with no one else's posts in between yours. In order to avoid that and still respond to multiple people, you can use quote tags to put all of your responses into one larger post.

[vince3]

To those claiming that Gary bringing Yuki to the play is sufficient reason for Zii to punish him later on even after she's done polishing Yuki's pearl, please remember this:

Zii handcuffed Yuki to Gary to escape her when she was dressed up as Magical Girl Tralala, and had the key to the cuffs, forcing Gary to carry Yuki to the apartment after Yuki fainted seeing one of Gary's comic pages of Matt

Zii put Gary in the situation that then forced Gary to have to deal with Yuki's charms to draw her precious comic to outsell her dad's, and Zii never truly helped Gary find any other girl other than Crazy Yuki for him to even consider taking as a date to the play.

[Ravenhull]

One minor note, it appears that Zii didn't intend to keep the key to the cuffs. Remember her reaction when Jung noticed it dangling from her wrist. Of course, it still fits with her selfish hedonism, which does not mean she's a bad person. But she does need a shock to her worldview...

[badwolf]

My understanding of the phrase "double posting" is more than one post to the same person's post. I posted to 3 DIFFERENT people. Perhaps you'd care to quote me the rule against replying to more than one person on a thread, if you would? Or are you saying that I must make only one post if I'm replying to multiple people?

In Rule 2, I note it says "don't be afraid of posting. We want you to post." Should I reduce my number of posts and violate THAT rule?

And yes, thank you, I DID mean Sonya. My error.

Actually, double-posting means posting more than once in a row, with no one else's posts in between yours. In order to avoid that and still respond to multiple people, you can use quote tags to put all of your responses into one larger post.

OK. Not sure why it's important not to have two or more posts in a row, but I'll abide by the rule if that's what it means. Thanks!

[albert.aribaud]

Not sure why it's important not to have two or more posts in a row

Think of it as never using more resources than required: a reply with two quotes is smaller than two replies with one quote each, plus it makes a logical whole where you can "factorize" anything that would have been duplicated in the separate replies.

[Sidhekin]

A logical whole by stringing together two or more separate issues?

Yeah right.

[albert.aribaud]

A logical whole by stringing together two or more separate issues?

Yeah right.

Who said they are logically separate? (not talking about any specific instance here; just pointing out that one does a merged reply precisely only when merging makes sense, thus when the issues merged are not that separate)

[badwolf]

A logical whole by stringing together two or more separate issues?

Yeah right.

That was my feeling, too - since more than one post by a poster is allowed in a THREAD, why does it matter whether they're strung together in one post or not? I could understand it if you're making replies at the end of a thread to multiple posts by the same poster, I suppose, but there's a give-and-take within a thread where different comments and issues arise.

If I'm having a conversation with multiple people, it's a give-and-take. I don't sit there listening for fifteen minutes and then say 'Oh, Steve, I agree...and Bob, yes, I agree with your point about that..and Jeff, I can't agree about your views.'

[albert.aribaud]

If I'm having a conversation with multiple people, it's a give-and-take. I don't sit there listening for fifteen minutes and then say 'Oh, Steve, I agree...and Bob, yes, I agree with your point about that..and Jeff, I can't agree about your views.'

But you might start your day and see Steve's, Bob's and Jeff's posts fifteen minutes (or in my case, several hours) after they've written them.

[zgwortz]

Not completely true, as Zii mentioned, technically Yuki is bisexual, like Zii herself is, but due to the whole penis trauma she essentially operates for all intents and purposes like a lesbian. But that doesn't mean she is one.

Hmmm, if I'd seen her actually have sex with a man I might be more convinced.

From what we have seen, all we can say is that Yuki is somewhere between a 2 and 5 on the Kinsey scale. She's had a boyfriend in the past, even though she hasn't had sex with one. There has been definite interest in girls. At her age, trying to pigeon-hole her any closer than that is nearly impossible, and she probably knows no better than we do.

@albert: Quotes are all well and good used sparingly - but can clutter up the forum, and break the flow of the conversation. In many cases they aren't even necessary as all you need to do is put a name in front like I did for this part of the comment. Even though I'm responding in this paragraph to something you wrote a page and a half ago, this response contains enough context that a quote wasn't needed at all. The only time a quote is needed is when the context of what you're replying to isn't obvious, and even then should only quote what's needed for that context. Note, for example, above, I cut out the original quote IS_Wolf responded to -- it didn't add anything to the context. (I'd normally not even consider a nested quote like that, but my response above applies to both of them...) Finally, your comment about two people responding at the same time is a non-issue -- if your post isn't the one immediately following, then it will show that and give you a chance to change your response when you try to post it. And you can *always* edit it after posting.

@badwolf: Since posting on a forum in general *isn't* a face to face conversation, you often find yourself with a whole bunch of messages since you last posted. (As I did here...) There are two mindsets to responding to those: One is that you respond to a post as you read it. This tends to result in multiple sequential posts, and also tends to result in responses which don't necessarily further the discussion as they rehash something which was already discussed to death in the posts which followed it that you haven't read yet. The other mindset is to read all the posts which have been made and *then* respond to the ones which you think need a response. This tends to result in a single post responding to multiple messages, and the content of the post is less likely to go over things again (and again, and again...) -- the discussion moves forward instead. By defining a rule of no-double posting, the forum tries to nudge people into the second mindset, resulting in better discussion. For those who can't escape from the first mindset, the Edit button is your friend.

[badwolf]

If I'm having a conversation with multiple people, it's a give-and-take. I don't sit there listening for fifteen minutes and then say 'Oh, Steve, I agree...and Bob, yes, I agree with your point about that..and Jeff, I can't agree about your views.'

But you might start your day and see Steve's, Bob's and Jeff's posts fifteen minutes (or in my case, several hours) after they've written them.

Posts, yes. And in that case I see the sense of asking people to make one post to multiple posters.

[Don Alexander]

Thank you, zgwortz!!!

Being of that second mindset, I first read the whole rest of the thread and saw that you already wrote everything I wanted to write. ;)