Shemp, the rule wasn't simply to cut down on the posts from members who could easily post 40 times a day, but mostly to reduce the back and forth bickering that was all too frequent between certain members. There's less bickering now, as these members want to use their limited opportunities to post more carefully.
--- shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], TurquoiseB > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Shemp, > > > > It's good to see you back, but during the time > you've > > been away there has been a new rule instituted > here at > > Fairfield Life, one that in my opinion was needed, > and > > which has fixed a lot of what had "gone wrong" > with FFL. > > > > Everyone is limited to five posts a day. Five. > Counted > > from midnight Fairfield Time to midnight the next > day. > > > Firstly, thank you for your kind words. > > Secondly, I don't feel comfortable with the five > posts a day rule > and, as such, I won't be participating much because > of it. I think > the solution is disproportionate to the problem. > You don't need a > jet plane to cross the street. > > Yes, I think it's great not to open up the messages > list of FFL and > see 40 postings by Spare Egg and I'm sure the 5/day > rule is > responsible for it. And I'm sure that one of the > motivations behind > the rule was to eliminate his diahrettic multiple > postings...perhaps > another motivation was to eliminate or reduce my > multiple postings as > well. > > But I had a method of eliminating Spare Egg's > postings that didn't > require censoring or stifling his flow of > expression: I DIDN'T READ > HIS POSTINGS! > > Even though an irritation, I simply scanned the > messages list and > didn't open up any postings listing him as the > author. > > So the cost to me? The minor -- VERY minor! -- > irritation of seeing > his name so many times and skipping over them either > with my cursor > or with my eyes. Yes, that often required opening > up one or two > more "pages" of messages lists on FFL than I would > otherwise have to > do every day and, yes, it was an irritation but it > was, like, > literally a 5 or 10 second irritation each day. I > wasn't waiting in > a bank line for 20 minutes whenever I need cash the > way I used to > have to do before there were automatic teller > machines. > > So was my scanning method a price to pay? Sure. > But it was a minor > one...VERY minor. > > Contrast that cost with the 5/day rule. > > This is how your rule works for someone like me: it > feels like a > monkey on my back knowing that if I read something > and, wanting to > respond to it, I have to hold back because I only > have X number of > possible responses that I can make...it's too much > of a carrot on a > stick for me. In a word? It stifles my free flow of > expression in a > way I can't live with. > > It feels too much like the school monitor in grade > school looking > down my back as I waddle to my next class in my > galoshes and winter > coat (think of Ralphie in "A Christmas Story"). > This is the opposite > of what the internet is, to me, supposed to be all > about. > > Hey, it's a matter of personal style and this rule > simply isn't a > good fit for me. > > It seems to work for your style and that's > great...but it's not > mine. I'll continue to lurk as I have over the past > 6 months or so > but when I post it will be once in a blue moon. > I'll find other > outlets for my expression. > > > > > > > On your first day back you made 12 posts during > that > > period for April 12th. This is your second post of > the > > day for April 13th. You have three more left, and > after > > that Rick and the other moderators have the right > to > > "cut you off" and swith you to moderated status, > so > > that nothing you post makes it to the list without > > > their approval. > > > > It's a Good Thing, really. > > > > In the time since this rule has been in place, the > tone > > of Fairfield Life has improved greatly. People are > > > taking more time to "think through" what they have > to > > say, and to *not* say things that really don't > need > > saying. There are very few barbs and insults > hurled > > by children who just won't grow up, and when they > are, > > those of us who were damned tired of the children > only > > have to hit 'Next' a maximum of five times per > child. > > > > I *like* the new system, because it makes me value > my > > words more, and use them more circumspectly. I > don't > > waste my time responding to people who really > don't > > deserve that time. And I think a lot of people > here > > feel the same way. A number of posters who had > been > > driven away from what Fairfield Life had become > have > > come back, and are contributing again. I think > that's > > a Good Thing. I'm spending one of my five posts > today > > to try to explain this to you, hoping that you > really > > missed the new rule and weren't aware of it. > > > > Welcome back. I think it'll be good to read the > things > > you have to say, especially when, like everyone > else, > > you have become comfortable with the fact that you > can > > only say them five times a day. > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], > "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > This is the best take on the whole l'Affaire > Imus that I've > > > seen or heard so far. > > > > > > > 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
