--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Ok, salyavin, I can relate to the tediousness of clicking > back pages.
He's talking about reading online, not via email. There's no need to "click back pages" if one is reading online. > Yahoo changed that process and now it's a scrolling action which includes a > big jump at a certain point. So, like a ballerina twirling, one has to keep > one's eye on a chosen email, otherwise one loses one's spot and the gnashing > of teeth ensues. > > > Anyway, thank you to everyone who commented on this topic which in my > psychological way I find fascinating. And in my Gemini and personal way I can > see both sides. I love to write short snappy replies. And I like to read > every post though admit I usually skim really really long and or especially > nasty posts. So it could be overwhelming for me if there was unlimited > posting and I was still reading or skimming each one. > > > Anyway, FWIW, I vote for SEVENTY posts per week. Nice round number, comes out > to 10 per day, another nice round number, if one is so inclined to think that > way, which I am. Meaning I think of a daily rather than a weekly allotment. > > PS to turq: having posts ignored is GREAT for being reminded to work on > Attachment Disorder (-: > > > ________________________________ > From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodlewix@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:01 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Thu 01-Aug-13 00:15:05 UTC > > > > Â > > > --- 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?ÃÂ 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 > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > --- 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. > > >
