--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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...
'Oh duck you,you gullible damn fool, whoever you are.' zo, it's still before midnight in FF & i'm going to expend one of my five posts today to just say just that. Complain to the moderators about the insult if you need to you... fool. I dare them to 'moderate' me. Have a good night otherwise, sweet dreams and see you in the morning and in a new day of five post rounds. -Doug in Iowa > > 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 > > <no_reply@> 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. > > > >
