Now I bet if it was some other poster here who went one over and had no "fans" not a word would be said. You people wanted posting limits and those rules should then stand.
emptybill wrote: > Alex you are so orthostatic - you would make a good commissar. > > This rule was set up to curb intentional over-posters not to punish > inadvertence. Repeat over-posters might warrant this action but this > rule-dominance is Pharisaical and absurd. Go tell the puppet master that > you need clarification. > > You can of course have him email me. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stan...@...> wrote: > >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" >> > j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: > >>> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> >>> > wrote: > >>>> >>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" >>>> > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount >>>>> > <ffl.postcount@> wrote: > >>>>>> Fairfield Life Post Counter >>>>>> =========================== >>>>>> Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 05 00:00:00 2010 >>>>>> End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 12 00:00:00 2010 >>>>>> 427 messages as of (UTC) Fri Jun 11 00:06:06 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> 51 authfriend <jstein@> >>>>>> >>>>> I can't see a Yahoo glitch or accidental double-post to explain >>>>> this. Last night's post count was 46, and you posted 5 more >>>>> times today, so it was a miscount on your end. You can post >>>>> again on the evening of Friday, June 18th. >>>>> >>>> One (1) small mistake and the most articulate writer on FFL is >>>> banned for a week ? I hope you see how ridicelous that looks. >>>> >>> I am a great admirer of Judy's extraordinarily sharp intellect, >>> > however enforcement of the post count rule isn't weighted according to > the quality of posts. I checked the website log for any deletions she > may have made, and I looked for any unintentional errors or server > glitches. There were none. I even manually counted her posts on my own > email feed to double check the count. Bottom line: She started the day > knowing she only had four more posts left, and she posted five. Unless > Rick can come up with a reason why the rule should be unfairly not > applied to her, she's outta here for a week. > >> To clarify, I was not implying that Judy intentionally over-posted. >> > What I was trying to convey is that an accurate post count was posted > the night before, showing 4 more posts, and for whatever reason, she > posted 5 more times. > > > >
