--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Alex, it seems to me that the only person making work for you > > > is you. Nothing could be simpler to enforce than the Posting > > > Limits. You just look at the Post Count from Friday and if > > > someone has gone over 50, they sit out the next week. Period. > > > > > > Period. > > > > From now on, that's the way it's going to be. But, the case by > > case, human element enforcement policy has been there from the > > start, if I'm not mistaken, and that's what made work for me. > > Back in the beginning, for the first couple of months, > there was no "down side" to going over the posting limit. > So a few people continued doing it, regularly exceeding > the limit by several posts every week. I think you can > guess who the primary offender in this respect was.
If Barry means me--of course he does--he's lying. And I don't mean making a mistake, I mean telling a deliberate falsehood. He made this claim back then as well, and it was definitively refuted. In the first 12 weeks of the 35-post-per-week limit that his claim referred to, I was over by a grand total of three posts. As long as there's been a limit, I've observed it, going over it only on rare occasions and always accidentally. (No, I take that back, there was one time when I went one over deliberately.) I can and will document this if Barry challenges it. > Then Rick was convinced to put some "teeth" into the limit > by imposing a week-long "time out" on those who went over > the limit. I don't remember any "exceptions" being made > then, although some certainly have been since. Exceptions have been made all along. > > IMO, the posting limits are there to mollycoddle whiners who > > can't be bothered to use appropriate filtering. > > Some of us, myself included, don't want to read FFL via > email. Therefore the option of "filtering" is out for us. > More important, I think you may be misremembering the > extent of the problem, and why the need for limits came > up in the first place. Several people -- three in partic- > ular -- were consistently making 30 to 40 percent of the > *total posts to FFL*. When asked to cut down, all three > not only refused, they "upped their numbers." This last is another blatant and malicious lie, on both counts. Nobody "refused" and nobody "upped their numbers" in response to a request to cut down. And Barry conveniently neglects to mention that he himself was among the original group portrayed as overposters. He embraced the posting limit idea when it first came up because he perceived that he could use it against his critics, as he has done repeatedly right up to the present. > I still think that posting limits are a good idea, > even if they are a bit of a pain in the ass. The > little amount of work they cost me, because I actually > count, is more than worth not having to open FFL and > find that one or more persons with no self control > have made 20 posts each overnight, all of them basic- > ally saying the same damned thing or flaming the same > damned person. You've never seen such a thing. It's one of your fantasies. <snip> > I remind people of the situation that has brought > this whole discussion up again. What about the example > of someone so desperate to post and "correct" someone > that they *forget what day of the week it is* gives > you confidence that they would be able to control such > urges if the posting limits went away? Just sayin'. There has been no such "example." Yet another fantasy.
