--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > Nope, wrong, Sal. Read what he wrote again: "The > > ORIGINAL GUIDELINE was put in place to curb flagrant > > overposters" (my emphasis). The original posting > > limit was *not* put in place to curb Jim; he was > > *not* considered one of the "flagrant overposters" > > pre-guideline. > > Um, Judy, there was no overposting, "pre-guideline," by > definition. In order to overpost, there has to be some > known boundary one's crossed.
Sorry, wrong again. That doesn't even make sense. If there had been no overposting, obviously no limit would have been called for in the first place. > > And even if he were to make 50 posts > > per week now, he still wouldn't be a "flagrant > > overposter" in the sense the 35-post limit was > > designed to curb. > > Of course not--he's special. Wrong once more. *Nobody* would be a "flagrant overposter" at 50 per week in the sense the 35-post limit was designed to curb. > > With the exception of Rick, those who busy themselves > > with counting other people's posts and announcing when > > when they've reached their limit are just being > > intentionally obnoxious, throwing their weight around > > and using the limit to put down and shut up people > > they don't like. > > Physician, heal thyself. Nope, wrong *again*. I don't keep track of other people's posts. I don't care whether they go over the limit.
