--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 7:20 AM, Vaj wrote:
>
> > Why mess with what already works so nicely?
> >
> > On May 3, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
> >
> > Judy posted 10 times today, so she joins Shemp in moderation
land. No
> > posts for her until Friday. Curtis overposted by one. Light slap
on
> > the wrist. Even though everyone but New Morning is opposed to
it, I'm
> > seriously thinking of trying the 35 posts-per-week system. You
can
> > shoot your wad in one day and we won't hear from you for a week,
or
> > you can pace yourself. Either way, the daily average should be
about
> > the same. I overpost myself some days, and other days don't post
at
> > all. So this way I wouldn't violate a rule I'm supposed to
enforce. If
> > we try this, we'll start it Friday night at midnight, so weekend
> > warriors will have free reign. My email client (Outlook) shows
me the
> > total of posts, if I sort by posters' names, so it won't be hard
for
> > me to keep track of. Maybe we'll try it for a week, then
reevaluate.
>
> Rick,
>
> I think it's a great idea. My guess is, Judy and her latest
sidekick,
> Jim, will keep trying to start arguments with whomoever's
convenient in
> the hopes that you will be forced to agree that the limits don't
work
> (doesn't abolish the fighting,) and therefore give up. Hopefully
you
> won't, but I"d guess right now that's part of their deal.
>
> In that spirit, I"d say the 35 post weekly limit is great--we can
get
> all or most of Judy's/Jim's over with in a few days, and not have
to
> deal with them the rest of the week. I hope you'll try it.___
>
> Sal
>
and all this time I thought *you* were *my* sidekick Sally....again,
I refuse the power you have given me over you. Save it for Martha.
