Turq
I'm not opposed to posting limits since they have curbed the over-posters on FFL. However, having a bank of 10 unused posts would solve the problem of going over the limit from inadvertence. I don't have a dog in the fight on most of these contentions between people. I also don't have likes or dislikes in who could call upon a free post. My offer to Judy is the same for people I have had disputes with in the past like you or Vaj or WillyTex. The choice doesn't have to be either/or limit or no limit. A "10 post bank" would solve the problem in a non-punitive way while maintaining the present state of order. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > It's up to Rick, of course, but on reflection I have no > problem with removing the posting limit. On one condition. > > Leave the Post Count program in place, and allow it to post > its daily and weekly totals. > > I'm not likely to ever go over 50 posts per week, posting > limits or not. I like the haiku-like structure of having > to think through what I have to say, and put myself on a > kind of rant diet. I find it helps to keep the samsaric > "weight" off. > > But I think that everyone here knows that some *would* > opt for spamming FFL with their rants, either to troll > for attention and suck that attention vampire-like, or > use the spam to sell their opinions as superior to the > opinions of others. > > Since all but a couple of the potential abusers of their > God-given "right to spam" have fled the scene, I have no > problem with the remaining overposters being allowed to > do so, as long as everyone is apprised daily and weekly > how attached to a steady diet of Spam they are, and can > consider that dietary and lifestyle choice when assessing > their credibility. >
