Does anyone find it interesting that one of the *only* three people who caused the Posting Limits to be created in the first place, and who has since "posted out" and gone over the limit *several* times because she couldn't control herself, is now arguing that they "aren't needed?"
Sounds to me as if someone is trying to open the door so that she can post as much as she used to. Just to remind people, that was (during the months that I used the Yahoo Search engine to track it) 400-500 posts per month. She'd like to be able to do that again. Don't fall for it --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- 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. > > > > Share, the next time the Mean Girls Club starts > > ragging on you, try to imagine them having the > > right to do so in 100 to 150 such posts, *per > > person, per week*. > > Right, just try to imagine it, Share. > > > That's what used to happen. > > Just try to imagine that's what really used to happen. > > Just try to imagine Barry telling the truth. > > > In my opinion overposting at the levels it used > > to exist here at Fairfield Life > > There was no such thing as "overposting" until the > limits were imposed. > > > was and is a > > tool used to intimidate others and "drown them > > out" using sheer numbers. > > Barry's opinion is incorrect. > > Now, that's not to say he didn't *feel* "intimidated" > and "drowned out." But nobody was trying to make him > feel that way, and of course he could have made just > as many posts as anybody else, so his "sheer numbers" > argument is ridiculous. > > > It's also a "right" > > abused by people who are *incapable* of saying > > what they want to say in a few, concise posts. > > Nonsense. This forum is an ongoing conversation. > > > Another situation covers those who make lots and > > lots of uninteresting posts that no one replies > > to because they're uninteresting, and then blames > > it on people being afraid to reply because of the > > posting limits. :-) > > Nobody does this. > > > What's wrong with a convention that actually > > makes people THINK before they post? > > What's wrong with a person who believes people > don't THINK before they post? What's wrong with > a person who can make such an utterly meaningless > assertion and believe he's conveyed something > profound? > > > Seems to > > me that FFL could use *more* such restrictions, > > not fewer. > > The *truth* is that Barry knows he's incapable of > holding his own against his critics, incapable of > making reasoned responses to those who disagree > with him, incapable of sustained debate with them. > > A limit on the number of posts each person can > make *limits the number of his failures to respond > adequately*. > > That was his motivation in championing posting > limits to start with, and that motivation becomes > more urgent the older and less capable he gets. >
