From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 7:08 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Cool. I restored her posting privileges. I do think that because she posted 51 times last week, she should only post 49 this week. Fair enough.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of seventhray1 > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:50 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: > > > This rule was set up to curb intentional over-posters not to punish > > inadvertence. Repeat over-posters might warrant this action but this > > rule Ominance is Pharisaical and absurd. > > I agree. This was an obvious oversight. Isn't it the spirit, rather than > the letter of the law we are concerned with? It's pretty obvious when > someone is disregarding this rule. Why punish this infraction? > Alex shouldn't have to take the heat for this. Judy has tried to be diligent > about the post count, and I'm sure she didn't overpost intentionally. I've > occasionally "forgiven" people who did that. I accidentally overposted > myself one week, although several of my posts were administrative. So I say > let's cut her some slack this time and not banish her.
