i wanted to reply to a member but i had a message from the forum: you have already written twice to this member, something like that. Then “ you should consider replying to other members or adress a private message to him”
I find this message from the forum ( automatic) a bit annoying.
What do you think of that?
Definitely annoying, is private messaging active on the forum ? if not a bit of a catch 22.
i don’t think that private message is activated. Sorry to ask, i didn’t understood “ if not a bit of a catch 22” ?
It’s from a book by Joseph Heller, it means a paradoxical situation, in this case you are advised to use private message, but there is no private message option, so therefore impossible, a catch 22
“ impasse” in french. Catch 22 is a common english expression, used everyday?
if you respond, you will find yourself in a catch 22.
Ha ha, “impasse” suggests logic, where the rules/guidance are clear, logical and understood, “catch 22” is a bit different in that there is no logical outcome because it doesn’t make sense, the book was also made into a film, I recommend both the book and the film.
It’s pretty common FR, and certainly one that is part of normal English usage. In English impasse is also a word, imported from French, there is a subtle distinction between the meanings. An impasse would be a situation where we can’t move forward because you and I can’t agree. In the novel Catch-22 the catch 22 was that a pilot in Vietnam would be grounded (and thus safe) if he were crazy. However he had to ask to be grounded, and by asking to be grounded he proved he wasn’t crazy, therefore had to keep flying. So it’s not incompatible views, it’s a logical absurdity.
Edit - Beaten to it by the more succinct glasnaim.
the issue is to reply without replying, what i do now. It reminds me a bit the wonderful film” Brazil”.
Being asked to private message when there is no facility to private message is “a logical absurdity” as Eoink rightly puts it.
Same vibe as Brazil, an excellent film, what to do now is ignore the message.
in a buddhism zen “ lesson “, a follower (? this word) asked the Master how to go out from a room which has no doors and windows. The Master responded : “ just go out”
Did it stop you replying, or just suggest not replying to that person and respond to someone else instead?
If it didn’t stop you I suggest briefly considering whether you are being unreasonable or obsessive. If the answer is yes maybe hold off, but if not, or if you believe the other member and OP will not mind even if you are obsessing a bit, or maybe if you are dealing with an obsessive person anyway, then simply ignore the suggestion and proceed.
if i reply 3 times the same thing, it would be certainly obsessive. But the message from the forum is not about that. It is just, according to the policy of the forum, not possible to have a conversation with a member more than 2 times.
Example: FR: do you like this watch?
IB: i have similar one today…
FR: nice
other members replying…
FR: i can read the time on your watch well…
IB: it’s 8h03…
FR: > message from the forum policy: you have already replied twice to this member. You should consider replying to other members…
of course i ignore this message in all cases, because it’s stupid and annoying. You can discuss with someone, write more than 3 times to him without excluding the other members. Each member can join the discussion, it’s the logic of a forum.
Of course, a long discussion between only 2 members would be a problem, but it’s not the real point here.
Yes, I fully agree.
I think it is a preset forum “tool”, though I gave no idea whether Naim are able to turn it off or at least increase the number of ping-ping like responses before suggesting ceasing (and removing the suggestion of emailing).
It’s a good book, you should read it, then you will understand.
Indeed - and amazing how the term ‘catch-22’ has made it as a common English idiom. It is one of those ‘once read never forgotten’ books, having read it myself at age of about 15, and it made a lasting impression. The film was good as well, but best seen after reading the book - the propeller scene is a particularly memorable one…
As you have guessed it’s an automatic response. I’ll see if it can be amended in some way though.
Pedant alert! It was WW2 not Vietnam. 
Correct, it was set in a US airforce base in the Mediterranean in WW2.