--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], 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. > > It moderates a debate or discussion by not allowing certain > participants to hog all the time or space.
It is not possible for anybody on a forum like this to "hog all the time or space" because the time and space here are, of course, not limited. > There are bandwidth limitations that Yahoo seems to impose. Such as? > In Congress, that pack of criminals*, there are rules limiting > speaking time on any issue unless there is a filibuster. This > forces you to be more precise and compact in your expression. This forum is not Congress. It's a recreational social space, not a place to do the nation's business. Why should anybody be forced to be "more precise and compact" in their expression on a forum like this? > I recall you did not care for my idea to make posts a certain > length. I was not entirely serious about that, but the idea > was to make a post require a certain complexity so that short > frivolous posts and half-ass comments could not be tossed off. What is your problem with "short frivolous posts and half- ass [sic] comments"? You don't have to make such posts, nor do you have to read them. I might remind you, with regard to the sin of tossing off one's posts, that Barry insists he never edits his posts, that he always writes them off the top of his head just as the thoughts occur to him, and he rarely even rereads them before posting them. And they show it, IMHO. You can't legislate quality unless you want to be selective about whom you allow to post.
