--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The need for a 5 post a day limit on this particular group speaks > volumes about the (in)effectiveness of the TM program.
Perhaps. But consider this: 1) The guy that instituted it -- Rick Archer -- doesn't do TM, as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; 2) One of the main reasons the rule was instituted, I am told by posters here, was to get rid of the constant posting by Spare Egg...and he admits himself that he doesn't meditate regularly; 3) One of the other main reasons it was instituted according to posters is to stop the negative back-and-forth that goes on here...and we all know that means none other than the happy couple known as Judy Stein and Barry Wright...and half of that equation (Barry) doesn't do TM; 4) Yes, it's true that the other half of that equation -- Judy Stein - - does meditate but, hey, that's Judy we're talking about so you can't really blame TM. > > shempmcgurk 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. > >> > >> --- 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. > >>> > > > > > > > > >
