--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is one world class obsession! To reread, catergorize and > count 167 Judy Stein posts! The mere scope is mind boggling. > More power to you -- if thats what floats your dingy.
I did it as I went along, keeping an Editpad file with the checklist of categories open as I read FFL, so it took me less than a second per post. The hard part was having to read all of her posts all the way through in the first place. :-) I did it because I was pretty sure what she'd claim about "being attacked" here, as opposed to the reality of the situation, and I wanted to have "the numbers" handy when she started doing exactly that. I tried to go out of my way to be fair in this counting; there were quite a few posts I charitably put in the "positive" category that didn't really deserve to be there. I think I made my point, but if anyone disagrees with it, just keep your OWN checklist. And then, next time Judy claims that other people are the ones doing the "attacking" here on FFL, trot out your own list. There is how she perceives herself and her actions and then there is reality. The two are not the same. 'Nuff said about Judy Stein. She's a negative little pissant who doesn't deserve my attention, much less any more of my five posts per day. You people deal with her. Now that this little "run the numbers" exercise is over, I don't even have to READ her posts. > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > And speaking of tendencies, let's look at a few > > of them you were so quick to dismiss earlier today > > about yourself. You claimed that my suggestion that > > the lion's share of what you bring to this group > > is negativity and putdowns was falsity or outright > > lying on my part. Well, honey, let's "run the numbers" > > for the last few weeks of your participation here on > > FFL, shall we? > > > > In the 30 days since March 19, 2007 (the first day > > that the five-post rule went into effect), you have > > made 167 posts. Here's the breakdown of what those > > posts "contributed" to Fairfield Life: > > > > Positive: > > * Discussing a topic calmly, without rancor, and > > without insults -- 21 > > * Being funny and lighthearted and enjoyable -- 2 > > > > Neither Positive Nor Negative: > > * Questions about the five-post rule itself -- 8 > > * Reposting someone else's thoughts and ideas, > > without comment - 15 > > > > Negative: > > * Ragging on the five-post rule itself -- 12 > > * Ragging on Rick (at least one slam against > > him in the post) -- 14 > > * Ragging on Vaj (at least one slam against > > him in the post) -- 13 > > * Ragging on Curtis (at least one slam against > > him in the post) -- 16 > > * Ragging on Barry (at least one slam against > > him in the post) -- 29 > > * Ragging on other FFL posters (at least one > > slam against someone) -- 22 > > * Ragging on politicians/public figures (at > > least one slam in the post) -- 15 > > > > Honey, you've been on the rag. > > > > Physician, heal thyself. When you can go a > > week without dumping on someone like Curtis > > because you're feeling shitty about yourself > > and have to project it onto someone else, on > > that day I will have some modicum of respect > > for you. Not until.
