--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, in Judy's response to my "Scare Quotes redux" post, > I think we have a clear picture of how the "rules" Judy > tries to force others to follow with regard to language > don't apply to her.
Nope, more fantasy. I don't try to "force" anybody to follow rules, number one; number two, as I pointed out in some detail and Barry has conveniently ignored, context plays a major role in determining what someone is implying. In context, it was clear I wasn't implying someone had said something they hadn't; in context, it's clear Barry was. > Let's tackle another subject -- overposting. Since the > establishment of the 35-post-per-week limit, Judy has > gone over that limit more times than she has abided by > it, and more than any other person on this forum. (You > can check this yourself using the Yahoo Advanced Search > feature if you don't trust me.) That's odd, given that Yahoo Advanced Search says I've made 422 posts in the 12 weeks the 35-post limit has been in effect, May 5 through July 27, a whopping 2 posts over the total limit for those 12 weeks (12 x 35 = 420). Gosh, I guess maybe we *shouldn't* trust Barry. > "We now have a policy that limits all members > to 35 posts a week. Members are responsible > for counting and restricting their own posts, > *but members who regularly exceed their weekly > quota will be put on moderated status*." > > So, Judy, you *have* gone over this limit regularly. > Are you now willing to be placed on moderated status, > or is this yet another example of how the rules that > apply to other people *don't* apply to you? If Rick wants to put me on moderated status for those two extra posts over the entire 12 weeks, he's certainly within his rights to do so. > Me, I don't care one way or another whether Judy is > placed on moderated status ROTFL! , but I do wish that she > and other posters who often go over their limits would > stop. Here's why. > > While the 35-post-per-week limit is arbitrary, it was > established for a *reason*. The reason was that some > folks (myself among them) had gotten obsessive about > posting to FFL And now Barry has become obsessive about counting other people's posts and making a huge deal of it when anybody goes over. <snip> > And I really do believe that it's a conscious decision. > How hard is it to keep a "tote sheet" of one's posts for > the week? I certainly do it, and it's no trouble at all. > Last week Judy leaped into the fray and used her last > posts of the week angrily defending Jim I made one single post in response to Barry's. when I mentioned > his overposting and poked fun at him for it; Of course, Barry didn't just "poke fun" at Jim; he nastily suggested Jim had ignored Rick's warning. she then went > on to overpost herself, unable to control herself. My single extra post so agitated Barry, who had reached his posting limit already, that he lost control and fired off an insulting private email to me. *After* > Jim's overposting had been pointed out to him a second time, > he went on to post twice more. He stopped as soon as he saw Barry's post. He'd missed Rick's warning. I'm sorry, but there is > something more than simple forgetfulness going on here. What's going on is that people are having a good time chatting and aren't freakishly obsessing about the number of posts they (and everyone else) have made, the way Barry is. <snip> > News flash, dudes -- authority doesn't come from claiming > it; it only comes from earning it. Show some respect for > the FFL community and you might earn their respect in return. > Continue to actively show your disrespect for and disdain > for that community, and you will incur the same in return. > It's just karma. Consider yours. 'Nuff said. Sorry, Barry, but you personally do not determine the respect of the FFL community. You're only one member; you don't speak for everybody else. As for your own status vis-a-vis the community, you might consider whether making patently false statements and misrepresenting what you and others have said and done (as in the post I'm responding to) is the sort of thing that's likely to earn you respect.
