TurquoiseB 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. I guess it's because she is "special." > [Scare quotes here...I don't mean to imply that Judy > *called* herself special, even though she clearly *does* > consider herself special.] > Barry, you are so *special* to post this about the nitpicker Judy. Now we have a clear picture of what you do when not visiting a flea market - overpost - yadda yadda yadda.
Did I spell that right? Ok, so, what's up with this history of overposting to FFL? Sounds like you've either got a lot of time on your hands or you're on a big ego108 trip. Newsflash: Do you ever post any news about the comings-and-goings of the Maharish? You're over in France right? Couldn't you just rent a boxcar and drive up to Flea Town and check things out? If you did that, you'd be really *special*, in my opinion, since I seem to be the only respondent on this forum that has been inside a Maharishi Golden Dome in years. Now let's tackle another problem, Shoki: Why did you post all that mis-information about Buddhists? So what's *up* with that? > 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.) She has done so *regularly*. > Here are the FFL Guidelines on posting limits (emphasis mine): > > "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? > > Me, I don't care one way or another whether Judy is > placed on moderated status, 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 were doing so hundreds of times > a week, flooding the newsgroup with their opinions > and their arguments, and ruining it for other people. > > Then came the 5-post limit, and then the (IMO better) > 35-per-week limit. And almost everyone abides by it. > Almost everyone. > > So what's *up* with these folks who get "carried away" > and post over their limit, especially the ones who do > so regularly? Is it *just* that, as Sal suggested last > week, they're so dumb that they can't count to 35? I > think not. I think the phenomenon has to do with three > things -- ego, ego, and ego. > > Ego1 is these posters' seeming belief that what they > have to say is so important that they have the "right" > to say it, no matter what anyone else thinks. > > Ego2 is an issue of self control, or rather the lack > of it. The 'repeat offenders' often not only reject > the idea of mindfulness or monitoring their behavior, > they reject it *angrily*, as if anyone who suggests > that they practice a little of it are fucking with > them personally, depriving them of their essential > human rights. From my perspective, what's really going > on is that they *can't* monitor their behavior; their > compulsions *run* them. They are locked into a compul- > sive "Gotta reply, gotta rebut, gotta attack those who > 'attack' me" syndrome. > > Ego3 has to do with respect. The 35-post-per-week limit > has been soundly applauded by most people on this forum. > Many who had previously fled have returned; voices that > had been silenced are beginning to speak up again. And > yet some are still trying to drown them out, and clearly > feeling that they have the right to do so, no matter > what the larger community feels. And that's the operative > word for Ego3 in my opinion -- community. The 'repeat > offenders' don't really *feel* a sense of community. They > act as if FFL revolves around *them*. There is a strong > *lack of respect* for others implicit in having made the > conscious decision to exceed the limit set by the FFL > community. > > 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 when I mentioned > his overposting and poked fun at him for it; she then went > on to overpost herself, unable to control herself. *After* > Jim's overposting had been pointed out to him a second time, > he went on to post twice more. I'm sorry, but there is > something more than simple forgetfulness going on here. > > I think it's rude, and an indication of a greater dis-ease > on the part of the 'repeat offenders.' And I wish they'd > stop. > > As mentioned above, a possible "Ego4" reason for compulsive > overposting might have to do with one's feelings of being > "special." The 'repeat offenders' don't really consider > themselves *part* of the community; they're "special," and > don't have to follow the community's rules. > > I agree. They're "special," all right. Just not in the > way they seem to think. Jim seems to want to be perceived as > one of the "enlightenment authorities" here and Judy seems > to want to be perceived as one of the "honesty and truth > authorities." > > 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. >
