On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > How can it be considered covering up, when there's nothing the least bit > secretive about deleting posts? Admins have a bit more specific info about > deletions, but anybody can see that deletions occurred, and anybody can look > at the alternate archive and figure out what was deleted. It makes no sense > to accuse Judy of trying to hide her overposting when there's simply no > possible way to hide the overposting or the deletions. There's also the fact > that she emailed me to tell me what had happened. I see no dishonesty or > deception in any of her actions.
Judy has over-posted on numerous occasions. When she doesn't, she posts out at exactly 50 posts - as if she was totally obsessed with posting. In fact, the reason posting limits were set was BECAUSE OF JUDY (and Lawson). SO the entire list has been held hostage because of these two posters. But really, Judy is the main culprit. Lawson had his own issues and has worked on them to the point where he seems to have those compulsions under control. I myself routinely underpost. But on the occasions where I have just lightly over-posted by Yahoo! not sending a post or two or three to me, I was immediately banned, despite any protest. At this point, since public flogging is no longer in fashion, I think Judy should be both banned and flogged on YouTube.
