Rick Archer wrote:
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Bhairitu
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:53 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A Case for Modifying The Five Post Limit
>
>
>
>
> This 5 post thing is the result of a few folks who apparently have an
> addiction to FFL and maybe afraid of losing their jobs because they
> spent too much time here (and there were some who didn't have any jobs
> too). Then we have the folks who must be hungover and thought they were
> posting to their blog and instead posted here. Posting limits are
> offensive and infantile. They are the sign of an unenlightened mind and
> the sign of encroaching fascism in the world. They are such a joke that
> some friends at Wired are thinking of doing an article on this group. :)
>
> Does the smiley face mean you're joking? It would be cool if they did. That
> would certainly boost membership. Like it or not, the posting limit works,
> and praise of it is almost unanimous. I'm tempted to try New's 35
> post-per-week suggestion (or was it mine?), but opposition to that is almost
> unanimous. The 7-post limit is kind of an interesting idea. Any feedback on
> that?
You need the rollover posting limits that I once suggested but that you
have to be administered by some kind of script as I certainly wouldn't
suggest doing it manually. I'm for no limits of course just like all
the other YahooGroups I'm on (this is the only group I've heard of that
has posting limits). I do think that not only Wired would find this
situation humorous but also Yahoo. Try whatever takes the least
moderator work (being one is sort of a pain as I know) of course that
would probably be no limits. :)
