--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Seraphita, you have probably already figured out that Barry is,
> to say the least, unreliable. He makes the following post almost
> every time the posting limit comes up. He never tells the story
> truthfully and always uses it to bash his "enemies" (in this
> case, primarily moi). I've made a few comments (same ones I
> usually make).
> 
> --- 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
> 
> It's not just an "odd convention," it's a rule. Seraphita
> has been posting here since July 2011; there's no basis for
> her to have been "caught unawares" by the posting limit 
> after two years. She just apparently didn't realize it
> applied to her.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Given how often you post this "history," Barry, I doubt
> anyone but the most raw newbie needs to have their memory
> refreshed, at least of the Barry-funhouse-mirror version.
> 
> > 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,
> 
> First lie: Nobody *ever* made "hundreds of posts
> a week."
> 
> > effectively "drowning out" other posters and
> > using volume and quantity to replace quality. 
> 
> Second lie: It's obviously impossible to "drown out"
> other posters if there are no posting limits, because
> they *also* have the freedom to make as many posts as
> they wish.
> 
> As to quality versus quantity, obviously that's a
> matter of opinion.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Third lie: There's no need to "wade through" any posts.
> If you don't want to read a person's posts, you just
> skip them.
> 
>  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. 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Actually they were originally limited to 5 per day. That
> was raised to 7, then to 35 a week, then to 50 a week.
> 
> Remember how violently opposed you were to a posting limit
> at first, claiming it would be censorship?
> 
> It was only after you'd thought it over some and realized
> that you'd have fewer challenges from me to deal with
> that you got behind it. As long as it "censored" me (and
> some of the other pro-TMers here), you were fine with it.
> 
> And in fact the call for posting limits had more to do
> with the constant fighting that had been going on--primarily
> instigated and perpetuated by Barry--than with the sheer
> numbers of posts from any particular individuals.
> 
>  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."
> 
> (You might want to learn how to write King James-style
> English correctly sometime, Barry.)
> 
> Shemp was the only willful violator, as you know.
> Everyone else did their best but occasionally went
> over while we were getting used to keeping weekly
> track. The rule about violators being put on moderated
> status (i.e., able to read but not post) was invoked
> right around the time we switched from 7 posts a day
> to 35 a week back in May 2007, I believe.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Nobody ever did that, of course.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is an interesting bit of chop-logic. As Barry
> knows, I made 40 posts in two days because there was
> an important issue on the table--specifically, Barry's
> dishonest and hypocritical attempt to "prove" that his
> "enemies" were obsessively posting about their
> "enemies" in their absence from the forum. It took
> quite a few posts to lay that to rest. (Not all 40 of
> them by any means, but quite a few, especially when
> Susan decided to cheer Barry on, not realizing he was
> lying.) Once that had been accomplished, things quieted
> down, and I would have had no need to make another 100
> posts.
> 
> (Interestingly, many people's post counts were higher
> than usual this past week.)
> 
> Bottom line, of course I never made lots of posts just
> because I could. I made lots of posts when there were
> lots of significant issues being discussed. With the
> posting limits, fewer significant issues are discussed;
> so even if I *could* make 140 posts a week, I wouldn't
> feel the need to.
> 
>  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.
> 
> I do want to get the "last word" *on the record*. I don't
> give a rusty freak whether anyone reads those posts.
> 
> Of course, Share also "concatenates" her posts, but she
> does it all during the week, not just at the end. For
> some reason that doesn't rouse Barry's ire. Perhaps I'll
> start doing it that way too, and then I'll never wind up
> being short on posts.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> And (as Barry knows) I usually don't either.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> For me it isn't "week after week after week," as
> Barry knows. It does happen from time to time when
> things are especially active (particularly when
> Barry is feeling more insecure than usual and decides
> he needs to "push buttons"--by spouting the most
> egregious lies he can come up with--to make himself
> feel more important, as he's been doing the past
> couple of weeks).
> 
> As to being "frustrated," that's Barry's fantasy,
> apparently based on how *he* would feel if he ran out
> of posts. If I make many posts toward the beginning
> of the week, it's because that's how I've decided I
> want to allocate my posts. Typically the weekend has
> more active discussions. If the weekend were at the
> *end* of the posting week, I'd likely make more posts
> then than at the beginning.
> 
> All this is just common sense, of course.
> 
> But there's no "frustration" involved. Barry does his
> best to provoke it by attacking me repeatedly when I
> have few or no posts left--or anyone else in the same
> situation that he doesn't like--but everyone knows why
> he's doing it, and I don't mind a bit because it makes
> him look so small.
> 
> Anyway, this has been yet another installment of Why
> You Shouldn't Take Barry's Word for Anything.

Now it is becoming much more clear, the pattern of things on this forum. Being 
a first-timer on any such forums (FFL) it has been interesting to come to know 
how it all works. For works it does; there is a sort of pattern that emerges. 

When you (Judy) get close to your posting limit Barry always emerges with more 
and more outrageous bullshit. He is exactly like the snotty-nosed kid with the 
pointy stick agitating the bear tied up behind the bars. You know this, Doc 
knows this and it is a lot of fun to watch you two 'bears' grab that stick and 
shove it back in his face. Like all bullies he usually runs away until he 
thinks the bear is safely back behind bars and then out he comes again. It is a 
cycle that repeats over and over. Wouldn't it be nice if he could, one day, 
surprise everyone? I mean, all this gushing over minions and Gru and that 
adorable children's movie "Despicable Me" can only garner so much ink and I 
think we may be getting to the end of the cartoon phase of things (as much as 
Share is having the time of her life with it).


>


Reply via email to