--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > Kirk, Shemp, and Richard Williams went over slightly last week. I'm not > > going to bust them because I went over the week before, without > realizing > > it. So I owe them one. > > Interesting logic. Another might have concluded "All four of us should > be banned for a week" (Shemp for 3-4 whatever cycle he is on). The > DEAL in going from 35 to 50 posts a week was, I thought, to give > people some breathing room so that if they went a few posts over 35 > --it was ok. But it was agreed I thought that there was zero tolerance > over the liberal extra 15 breathing room 50 posts/week. > > Jello a good dessert -- not such a good policy. >
I have special dispensation. I'm on a mission from God. > > > >But let's be more careful this week. I know that > > sometimes it seems like a stupid rule, and there are arguments pro > and con, > > but I think most would agree that it has improved FFL. As long as we're > > going to have the rule, I need to enforce it and abide by it myself. The > > limit is now 50 per week. > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: > 2/29/2008 > > 6:32 PM > > >
