--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
> Xeno, I still don't understand why people want to limit the number of posts. 
> If a person doesn't like a lot of posts, can't they simply not read some? 
> Maybe it's different for Message View in that one is forced to read them 
> all?  What is it? Otherwise limiting the number of posts seems like 
> suppression to me.

The trouble is that some people cannot help themselves, if we went
back to limitless posts we'd be back to having limitless repetition
of the same thing but much more thoughtlessly put because you
know you can do as many as you want.

Either your inbox gets flooded or, if you read online, you have
to click back 5-6 pages every day to find any threads you've
posted on. It gets very tedious. But not as tedious as the cult control centre 
that Buck proposes. Lets keep the status quo...

> ________________________________
>  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartaxius@...>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:23 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Thu 01-Aug-13 00:15:05 UTC
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote:
> >
> > No I'll get it.  Turqb is a newbie here.  If we need to litigate it we'll 
> > take it to the Shankaracharya to decide.  I got seniority. You all better 
> > git ready for the new 30-post limit then and much more strict enforcement 
> > of the FFL anti-blasphemy guidelines.
> > Sincerely, -Buck
> I would not mind a 30 post limit, but having a religious, Islamic-like 
> caliphate overseeing content would have me being the first in the trenches to 
> take you out. Blasphemy is a refuge for the power hungry who have a weak 
> argument for their wares. If you have to prop up your ideas by supressing 
> others in a discussion forum you do not have a worthwhile argument.

Reply via email to