--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Because you obviously got caught unawares by the odd > > > convention we have here at Fairfield Life of limiting > > > the number of posts anyone can make to 50 per week, I > > > thought I'd explain -- for your benefit and for that > > > of any other newbies, lurkers, or people who have > > > forgotten WHY they were established. > > > > > > Back in the "Bad Old Days," a few posters at FFL tended > > > to get...uh...carried away with regard to the sheer > > > number of posts that they made to the forum. It was not > > > uncommon for these individuals to make hundreds of posts > > > a week, effectively "drowning out" other posters and > > > using volume and quantity to replace quality. > > > > > > I and others got tired of it, especially after the need > > > to wade through literally thousands of posts per month > > > began to drive many people off of the forum. As I pointed > > > out in a post about the ***month*** of October, 2006: > > > > > > > Total posts: 4672 > > > > > > > > shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6% of total posts made) > > > > sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) > > > > authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) > > > > new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) > > > > off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) > > > > turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) > > > > > > > > Again, the "top three" account for a third > > > > of all posts. And again, they'll take no > > > > notice of this. So far in November, they > > > > account for 47% of all posts made. > > > > > > As you can see, I was one of the offenders myself, > > > although my numbers were not much higher than the > > > current 50 per week. > > > > No, only 4 x higher. > > See below. Ann is dumber than a bucket of hammers. :-) > > > > So in his infinite wisdom, Saint Rick Archer created > > > the Posting Limits, which initially limited us to 35 > > > per week, and then were expanded to 50. And at first > > > even they didn't solve the problem, because a few of > > > the people listed above continued to violate the new > > > guidelines, going over the limit each week, until > > > Saint Rick finally put some "teeth" into the rule by > > > declaring, "If thou overposteth, thou shalt sit silent > > > on the Overposters Bench for a week whilst the rest > > > of us haveth all the fun." > > > > > > And it's been a resounding success. The Posting Limits > > > are "fair and balanced" in that everyone is limited > > > to the same number. No one can get so carried away > > > in trying to "win" an argument over mere opinion or > > > "get" their "enemies" and use sheer numbers to accom- > > > plish either of these questionable goals. > > > > > > Yes, it's somewhat silly, and wouldn't be necessary > > > if everyone here was an adult, and thus had some sense > > > of balance in their lives. But the Posting Limits > > > clearly ARE still necessary, as evidenced by the fact > > > that at least one of the posters on the above list > > > made 40 posts in two days this past week. In the Bad > > > Old Days, if she had been allowed to continue at that > > > rate, we would have had to wade through 140 of her > > > posts this past week. > > > > "Wade through" 140 posts in a week by Judy when according > > to your old post count of four times the current limit > > at 218 posts you were "barely over the limit". I see we > > have 'Barry math' again. > > I'm replying while chuckling, because Ann has just > demonstrated "Ann math," which is as challenged > as "Ann logic" or "Ann morality." :-) > > > So if we were potentially "wading" at 140 Judy posts if > > she were allowed to have posted that currently, what were > > you all doing at 218 Barry posts back then - drowning? > > To use a Judy phrase, "go back and read what I wrote." > The totals listed were for a whole MONTH, dummy. So > during the month of October (4.42 "posting weeks") I > posted an average of 49.32 posts per day,
That's a lot of posts per week let alone per month at "49.42 posts per day". I'm reading what you wrote Barry but it isn't getting any clearer. Ah, isn't this fun? LOWER than > the current posting limit. Judy, during that same > month, posted an average of 109.04 posts per WEEK. > > If Judy were to continue posting at her Saturday > and Sunday rate for this last WEEK, she'd create > 140 posts a WEEK. To compare that to the totals I > listed for a whole MONTH, multiply by 4.42. That > would mean that she'd make 620 posts that month. > > Do you understand now, or do I have to send you a > refresher copy of "Dick and Jane Do Math?" :-) > > Also, do you understand what just happened? > > You were SO anxious to "get" Barry, and to "protect" > the woman whose ass your nose is buried in that you > completely misread what I said, and made an ass of > *yourself*. For your own sake, try doing this a > little less next week. > > > > As it is, she has had to resort > > > lately to "concatenating" her posts at the end of each > > > week, squishing replies to several different posts into > > > one, hoping beyond hope that someone -- anyone -- will > > > actually read them, and that she'll be able to get > > > the "last word" in. > > > > > > Saint Rick be praised. His wisdom hath made this > > > cybersaloon a much nicer place, one in which most of > > > us have no problem squeezing everything we want to > > > say into 50 or fewer posts per week. Those who don't > > > have the self-discipline to do this wind up being > > > largely silent and frustrated at the end of each > > > "Posting Week," and I for one don't feel sorry for > > > them, especially when they seem to do this to them- > > > selves week after week after week. > > > > > >
