I would say, you over-post, you're out for a week. Seems appropriate to me.
--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Vaj wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > >> On Sep 22, 2008, at 7:56 AM, feste37 wrote: > >> > >>> Banning someone for 3 weeks for the "offense" of posting 5 over the > >>> limit is excessive. It's overkill. I think that a ban, if you > >>> must ban > >>> people, of one week would be sufficient. Also, drop the judicial > >>> language of "3rd offense." What are you, the police? > >>> > >>> --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 3rd offense Lawson. I'm afraid this time you're out for three > >>>> weeks. > >>> We'll miss you. Toodles. > >> > >> Rick, I agree, 3 weeks is too much. Why not either 1 week > >> for all offenses, or one week for the first and then 2 weeks > >> thereafter? The first way would be easiest for you, as you > >> wouldn't have to remember which "offense" the poster was > >> on. Just a thought. > > > > > > What about "three strikes and you're out"? > > How about "three strikes and you're not only out, you're > consigned to the lowest circle of Hell for the > rest of eternity. Enjoy!" > > I mean, why not go wild here? > > Sal >
