Probably Dicie doesn't realize there is a posting limit. It is even doubtful he reads too many of the posts, excepting his, which he probably reads over and over again. I can only imagine what Dickie will say when the 50 post limit strikes. On the other hand, he's doing a pretty good job posting for someone who "unsubsribed"
--- In [email protected], "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The appearance of Dick in our faces this week reminds me that FFL is far more enjoyable > when firm posting limits are in place. Additionally, I enjoy watching FFL's perpetual > 'weekend drunk' max out by Sunday on most weeks. How much better FFL is with a firm > 50 / week limit. > > --- In [email protected], "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > Too complicated! Fifty a week seems about right. It's easy to > > remember, easy to calculate. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > You haven't been paying attention. We raised the post limit to 75 > > for two > > > weeks because of the election, but now it's back to 50. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been thinking about Vaj's suggestion of averaging out posts > > over two > > > weeks, so that if you don't post much one week, you could post more the > > > next. There are problems with that, such as deciding which two weeks go > > > together. IOW, if you do 25 one week and 75 the next, who's to say that > > > those two weeks go together? Maybe the 25 week was preceded by a 75 > > week and > > > the 2nd 75 week would have to be followed by a 25 week, not a fresh > > start on > > > averaging 2 weeks. But a plan I think would be cool if Bhairitu or > > someone > > > could automate it, would be to give people 50 posts a week starting > > from the > > > day they sign up, (existing members would get 50 per week starting > > from the > > > day we inaugurate the plan), and then hold them to an average of 50 > > per week > > > henceforth. They could only exceed 50 per week if they had accumulated a > > > post deficit. For instance, if they average 25 per week for the > > first three > > > weeks, they would be allowed 125 posts the 4th week. I doubt that most > > > people would abuse this system and go crazy some week. But it would > > restrict > > > to those who tend to max out to their usual limit, while enabling > > those who > > > rarely reach the posting limit to relax and forget about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It would easy to calculate this if the weekly totals were added to a > > > spreadsheet, but I wouldn't know how to automate that. Maybe one of our > > > computer whizzes could figure it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams > > > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 7:02 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I guess we won't be hearing from these > > > guys for at least a week! LOL! > > > > > > > 75 shempmcgurk <shempmcgurk@> > > > > 75 authfriend <jstein@> > > > > 75 Robert <babajii_99@> > > > > 74 TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > 54 Rick Archer <rick@> > > > > > >
