--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > 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. > > > > 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. >
I'm with you on this. Not only is it an unlimited, recreational, virtual environment, it can be modified with brain and/or software filtering by the user to appear however he/she desires. That's one thing I really appreciated about Usenet: no one in charge to enforce rules; you could either whine and remain discontent or be self-sufficient and filter the virtual environment as needed.
