Sally wrote: > My guess is, Judy and her latest sidekick, Jim, will keep trying > to start arguments with whomoever's convenient... > So, Sally, your contribution to the news forum today is to pick a fight with Jim and Judy. Go figure.
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. > > Sally wrote: > 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.___ >
