--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Emily, > > > > > > I have chosen to ignore, for now, your introductory remarks, which > > > are a gloss upon your commentary. I am going to post only my response > > > to your commentary. After that I shall look at these reflections > > > (which were written after you has composed your commentary--I have > > > excised them from this post) to see if they merit a separate post. > > > > If they do merit a separate post, make sure to post it after Friday's Post > > Count, 'cuz right now you're at 50 posts for the week. > > > > Dear Rick, A lot of this shit between people should go offline between folks > as a curtsey between folks. Let's go back to 30 posts per week. The > writing was much better then when posts were precious at 30 to 40 posts per > week. A cap of 50 posts per week puts this place in to twitter. Like if > someone wants to 'salon' on TV shows or on the book about Osama, or Ravi or > Robin or 'the gang' want to bomb this place on their stuff, at 30 posts it is > more likely to be connected to FFL. 50 posts per week is too damned > excruciating to get these people off of FFL. At 30 posts the airways would > free up by Saturday nite for topics related to FF on a lot of weeks. I'd be > glad to help you administrate this, just give me the passwords to FFL. > Your loyal and early FFL member, > -Buck in FF
That would mean less nonsense, sorry SILENCE, from Leiden too. I'm all for it !
