The need for a 5 post a day limit on this particular group speaks volumes about the (in)effectiveness of the TM program.
shempmcgurk 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. >>> > > > >
