--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Total posts: 4672 > > > > > > shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) > > > sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) > > > authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) > > > new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) > > > off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) > > > turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) > > > > > > Again, the "top three" account for a third > > > of all posts. And again, they'll take no > > > notice of this. So far in November, they > > > account for 47% of all posts made. > > > > What's the harm? > > No one is suggesting that these three don't post.
"Give the bitch a 'time out' of several months and then let her come back and at that point see if she's learned anything and proceed accordingly." --Barry Wright > However, quite a few people here have commented > on the effect that their *lack of self control* > in posting has had on the newsgroup. Not that many, in fact. > Imagine being a newbie, drawn to FFL by the blurb > on the home page, and trying to read through it > yesterday and today. What you would find is a > group that *appears* to be dominated by three > rather vociferous and harsh people. Their posts > constitute almost half of everything you could > read on the forum. They seem to do nothing but > argue (or, to be kind, they seem to do nothing > but argue in 80% of their posts). And they argue, > for the most part, about subjects that have little > or nothing to do with the subjects that attracted > you as a newbie to the group in the first place. I made some points about Barry's "newbie" sally (which, interestingly enough, he's not mentioned previously in all his ranting) in my previous post. Here I'll just note that any newbie who expected most of the posts in this forum to relate to his or her personal interests obviously didn't read the home page, where it says explicitly "Pretty much any topic is fair game" (as we have to keep pointing out to nablus). <snip> > To me, the issue is a social one. Quite a few people > here have tried, in one way or another to *get through* > to these three and tell them that their lack of self > control and tendency to dominate the forum Note that "lack of self control and tendency to dominate the forum," "compulsive posting," "not sane enough," and other such expressions are weasel phrases, thought-stoppers, which Barry uses to load his argument because he can't make a good rational case for it. by regularly > posting twice to six times as much as the other regular > posters is not appreciated. People have asked them > politely to cut down. Others have suggested giving > them an enforced "time out." Like Barry, for example: "Give the bitch a 'time out' of several months and then let her come back and at that point see if she's learned anything and proceed accordingly." <snip> > Still others have stopped reading them entirely. Which it's been suggested that Barry do if he finds the number of our posts so distressing. But (speaking of self-control) he seems to be unable to manage it. > BUT (and this is the important thing IMO), *at no > point* in all of this has any of the three ever given > the impression that they *hear* what the other members > of their community are saying to them. A few of the other members, that is. <snip> > And although Judy *has* cut > down a little from her highs of a few months ago, No, I haven't "cut down." The number of posts I make is a function of how much time I have available and whether I have something to contribute to the topics being discussed. > whenever the subject comes up she reacts by claim- > ing that people (me, in particular) are trying to > silence or censor her. "Give the bitch a 'time out' of several months and then let her come back and at that point see if she's learned anything and proceed accordingly." Gee, however could I have thought Barry was trying to silence or censor me? > I think I speak for many people here in saying that > all we're asking is for these three to CATCH A > FUCKIN' CLUE and realize that what they are doing > is socially unacceptable. > > A CHILD would have heard the feedback they'd received > from their peers by this time and made some attempt > to change their unaccpetable behavior. Why haven't > these three? Perhaps because we don't see it as unacceptable behavior. And perhaps because it's all too transparently obvious that what upsets the complainers is not the *number* our posts so much as their *content*. If anybody thinks Barry would be so insistently-- and *nastily*--complaining about the top posters here if they were critical of TM and supportive of Barry, rather than supportive of TM and critical of Barry, I have a nice bridge you might want to have a look at. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
