--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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?" > > > > Notice the non sequitur. I never thought they were needed > > in the first place and still don't. > > > > In any case, my point in the post Barry's commenting on was > > how distorted his account was in the post I was responding > > to. I wasn't making the argument he claims; he just wants > > to distract attention from how I debunked his previous post. > > > > (And I've never posted out because I "couldn't control" > > myself, BTW.) > > > > > > 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. > > > > *Everyone* posted more before the limits were imposed, BTW. > > There were more discussions, and they were more active. > > > > > > She'd like to be able to do that again. Don't fall for it > > > > "Fall for" what? I've always been open about what I thought > > of the posting limits. > > > > > As Barry trembles in anticipation, trepidation and fear. > > > > Exactly. He's hysterical at the very thought. For him, the > > posting limits have always been about *fewer posts from > > Judy* because he finds me such a threat. > > Somehow Judy, I do not think Barry thinks you are a threat.
Of course I don't. That's her FANTASY, and Ann's. They like to imagine that they are *hurting* the people they don't like, and that these people are cowering in fear of them and the Mean Girls things they and their two Cross-Dressing Mean Girls buddies ( Jim and Ravi :-) say about them. I think that the reality is that most of their victims figured out the Mean Girls act long ago, and now what they say barely registers, except as 1) an opportunity for laughter, and 2) an occasional opportunity to push *their* buttons, and get them to focus so intently on "getting" or "hurting" their intended victims that they post out early. As an example of the latter, after ragging on Share and I and Xeno this week, Judy has only a couple of posts left, and Ann hasn't got many more than that left. Soon they'll be gone, and good riddance. > But of course, we could ask him. Will he tell the > truth? Will he lie? According to the Mean Girls, I *always* lie. :-) I wonder if they'll think I'm lying about the number of posts left to them this week, lose control *yet again*, and emulate Jimbo by sitting out next week on the Overposter's Bench? :-) > Wouldn't it reduce the quantity of lying on the forum, > if there were fewer posts? 'Oh what a tangled web we > weave when first we practice to deceive!' Would truth > in its directness and simplicity not take less space? The bottom line is that I was against the posting limits when they were first proposed, too, and with good reason. I figured that the chronic overposters would ignore them, and "go over" the limits just to spite Rick, and others here. And they did. But then Rick reacted to *that* by creating the "go over 50 and you sit out the next week" rule, and things have just been hunky-dory ever since. Inter- estingly, if Alex had kept track of the people who have *had* to spend not one but *many* weeks on the Overposter's Bench, I think you'd find that Judy, Ravi, and Jimbo would top the list for number of occurrences. I've never once had to sit on that bench, and most of the more balanced members of this forum have *also* never had their bottoms touch that bench. There is a certain spiritual quality in self control. And IMO there is an opposite *non-spiritual* quality in the *lack* of self-control. Those who are lobbying for the ability to make more than 50 posts a week -- because that's just "not enough" for them and they deserve "special" treatment -- seem to me to fall into the second group. YMMV.
