On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
Have to agree with Judy on this one. Not flaming was as much a collective agreement as not overposting. To be diligent about one and intentionally violate the other is inconsistent and even hypocritical. Perhaps it takes more strength to abstain from flaming than from overposting, but it’s still the same muscle. Exercise it.
But flaming is often in the eyes of the beholder, Rick, and with the post limit, IMO, is too much--hence you have people self-appointing themselves as cop and taking it upon themselves to go after the offenders. Whether there was a "collective agreement," or not, it's just devolved into silliness and more immature behavior on the part of the cops than the flamers--IMO, of course. I do remember your party analogy quite well, just didn't realize that represented any kind of consensus. I don't know, maybe it's time to take another vote. I say that too many rules are almost worse than none. You've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other--now how about stopping in the middle. Pick one or the other--either play content cop, or just count posts. I'd say the latter is much easier.
Sal
