I’m sure there is a simply answer, but I have been wondering about this for some time(old board as well). Why do some posts in answer to the opening post appear to start a new section and others do not? Some have a circle with a line across the diameter others have a green arrow. Also, how would one answer the main post without butting into the existing lineup or appearing to be replying to a later post? Thanks Patrick
Hi Patrick,
Good questions. Let’s see if I can take a whack at answering them.
When you expand a section/topic with the green circle with the + in it, you get a tree/branching series/hierarchy of green arrows or clear circles with ‘-’ in 'em. The green arrows mean nobody has replied to that particular post while the ‘-’ in a circle means someone has; you’ll note that the last reply in a series of ‘-’ in circles is always a green arrow. That is, somebody replies to the original post in the thread and then somebody replies ( or does not) to them all the way down. For instance, if you look at this topic, right after I post this, your original question will have a circle with a ‘-’ and this post will have a green arrow.
To reply to the original post and not to a later reply ( or, for that matter, reply to a reply…to a reply…etc) , you can either pick the post ( from the expanded view ) and hit the Reply ( or Quote ) at the top right of the box containing that particular post or just go up the page of replies until you get to the original . Your reply page will come up, including a Subject: box - for this one, for instance, I have
Re: [PatrickShannon] Collapse This Section Icon
in the Subject: box. Which means it’s in reply to your specific post, the [PatrickShannon] in square brackets is the author of the post you’re replying to . If I wanted to change that, I could, say retyping the subject to Replies to Specific Posts, though it may be in the wrong series of replies in the ‘expanded tree’ if you are not replying to that specific post you mean to reply to and just replying to the last one in the sequence.
Gah, that’s an awfully complex way of saying it. Please don’t hesitate to reply/ask if I blew that explanation. Dunno that I can , mind you, but I’ll take a shot at it.
Hope that was of some use
doc…
Doc,
Thank you for the reply. I think my old brain may understand.
For example, in the thread following this one everyone posting has a clear circle with a"-" until your post in response to John Mellor which only has an green arrow. Easternpacific’s post which follows yours has a circle with a “-” because it was posted earlier. Your reply to easterpacific has a green arrow because it is in reply specifically to easternpacific and because it is the last post in the thread. Correct???
So, if I am posting to someone in a thread I go to their post and click “reply”. If I don’t want to appear to be butting in I go to the last post in the thread and reply. If I am not actually replying to the last post but rather to the orginal post I would still go to the last post unless I wanted to butt in. Correct???
Basically, go to the last post to avoid drop ins.
Once again, thanks. Your explanations both here and in the main forum are always excellent.
Patrick
Not at all, Patrick, indeed I think I may have worded my answer badly and you’ve drawn my attention to how I did that …so I guess my answers ain’t always that great, y’know?
Ok, on the thread just before this one…
My post is the last after John’s in one line of replies: Re: [JohnMellor] user profile and the [JohnMellor] means it’s a direct reply to his post, which was Re: [doc] user profile
Then there’s another set of answers that ends in my response to easternpacific’s kind words, which has Re:[easternpacific] user profile as the subject .
Ah,… that may not be the best example. Maybe this diagram will make life a little easier: for a typical thread -
the green not quite vertical lines are added to what you’d see in the threaded view to maybe help with the overall level structure, the blue lines refer to the path things are taking as one post follows another or who is responding to what.
Now, to reply to the original post without jumping in elsewhere, go to the original post and hit that reply link, or else the overall structure is gonna get a little odd, rather than jumping in at the end. Obviously, I explained that badly last time.
Again, sorry for the original explanation, hope this one is better.
doc…
Doc,
The diagram makes it clear. I could reply to an orginal post after several others have already replied and I would not be dropping in. My post would appear as a reply to the orginal but be placed in sequence. I think I understand.
Thank you for taking the time to explain how the board works. Your answers are clear. The problem was my understanding.
Take care.
Patrick
Naw, Patrick, if you didn’t get it the first time, then I blew it the first time.
See, I used to teach at the local community college, and they had Math Anxiety workshops for students who’d had so many bad math instructors that maths messed them up and the basic concept mathematics messed them up. I took some pride in being the guy the kids liked, 'cos I was able to get them in the way of understanding maths and making sense of what had baffled them before. So I go on the theory that if somebody can’t get an idea across, it’s a failure on the party of the speaker, not the listener, which goes against the basic rules of every teacher’s union and explains why I’m not at the local college any more. Looking back, I had a lousy explanation. It was all over the place, unclear and confusing.
Should I have thrown in a diagram originally? Oh yeah. Will I do a better one one of these days, due to the really lovely capacity this forum has to edit posts? Maybe.
In any event - don’t hesitate to ask questions. I may actually be able to come up with a useful answer…
…eventually, that is…
doc…
Doc,
I totally disagree with you regarding the quality of your explanation. I generally agree regarding your teaching theory. However, I think there are cases of students or readers of forums(myself being one) who are sometimes lazy and take the easy way out. But, I appreciate the time you have taken to present a logical explanation.
I once had a philosophy prof who stated in a class that the sign of a wise man is one who critiques his own statements. It appears you may fall into the category.
Take care.
Patrick
( loud and slightly maniac laughter)
You see, I used to tutor philosophy. Wound up with a degree in it after umpteen years of engineering school and discovering that engineering professors had quite often very good backgrounds in philosophy; I mean, they could give you a better discussion of a philosophic point, including references to classical, modern and contemporary philosophers than half the instructors in the philosophy dept.
Most everybody has two sides to their thinking. One for philosophy, one for engineering. One side has to have all the ducks lined up in a row, a logical progression with an inescapable conclusion, one side goes with ‘it looks ok, good enough’.
Philosophy demands exact, indeed fanatic, logic. You have to attack not only every weak point in somebody else’s logical argument, you have to attack your own even more thoroughly to remove every possible error or misperception. But it’s a finite thing, like mathematics, a game with rules and a fixed number of defined approaches.
Engineering is fun, but it’s the art of getting it out the door. You get to play with the infinite variety of the universe and what’s in it. You can’t know everything nor even every possible thing within your small part of engineering, so ya do the best ya can.
Anyhow… on that note, I’ll step back from the lectern and catch some sleep.
Best regards
doc…
Doc,
I should have known you had a background in logic.
As a confused young undergrad I pursued and eventually obtained a degree in philosophy with a minor in math. Learned enough to know that I don’t know anything! The skills and daily class challenges, however provided a background that proved valuable in other life pursuits-including my hobby- surfboard building.
My favorite of all classes was a logic seminar taught by a prof who was known as an aesthetics expert but had a background in engineering. The course brought together people from engineering, math/science, fine arts/music and philosophy. While, I believe, many registered thinking the course would be easy(myself included), the prof quickly turned it into a major challenge. The first half-hour of the first day he took a round out of the science people and just as the arts majors relaxed he turned on us. He often compared philosophy/logic to boxing and singles tennis-your most dangerous adversary is yourself-sort of like surfing. In any case, I learned a lot in that class about logic which I can’t remember and, more importantly, learned how to respect people with conflicting arguments.
I suppose swaylocks is a bit like that class!
By the way, there is a site called Neural Surfer that was posted here some time ago. Not sure about the address, but the author also has a discussion forum on yahoo. The author is a philosophy prof who is oriented to the social sciences.
Take care.
Patrick