--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. > Well, we've had informants who finked on the MIU drug users and Asian gals who traded sex for grades. We've had one informant fink on the MUM gays and lesbians. One guy even posted a report on Fairfield wife-swappers and swingers.
Now Turq wants to fink on the FFL cross-dressers? Go figure. > 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. >
