TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: >>> >>>> On Behalf Of authfriend >>>> >>>> >>>>> Not everyone thought his comments were "unsubstantial." >>>>> I found many of them extremely meaty. He has an almost >>>>> Zenlike knack for succinctness. That's what enabled him >>>>> to make so many posts. >>>>> >>>> I agree that many of them were substantial, but most were >>>> unnecessary "me too" posts >>>> >>> I can't recall Lawson's *ever* making a "me too" post. >>> I think that was one of the comments you made that >>> really bugged him, because it was just off the wall. >>> >>> , and despite repeated requests >>> >>>> from many people to cut back, he couldn't restrain himself. >>>> >>> He felt that his posts were unappreciated, as I >>> said to start with. Obviously you don't tell >>> somebody to cut back posts you appreciate. >>> >> No? Even your *supporters* were asking you >> to post less, Judy. And you categorically >> refused, as did Lawson, as did Shemp. The >> posting limits were the result. >> > > Just as a followup, I should point out that > yesterday, in less than 24 hours, you made 33 > posts. Those posts were mainly you either > rehashing old arguments that you've been argu- > ing about for 14 years on this forum or another, > and a few token posts dissing people you don't > like and trying to "lessen" them in the eyes > of other posters. > > If the posting limits had *not* been put into > effect, and you continued to post at the same > rate, you'd easily rack up over 200 posts for the > week. How many of the people who "appreciate" > your posts here do you think still would if > you were allowed to post as much as you clearly > want to? > > I think that what many of us "appreciate" most > about your posts is that now, under the new > posting limits, you've often compulsively used > them all up by Monday morning, and we can spend > the rest of the week free of them. The same would > be true of Lawson if he were still around, but > he'd "foul out on posts" by mid-day Saturday. > > And Shemp will probably come off his two-week > hiatus full of bile and go over the limit within > a few days, and then we'll be free of his posts > for at least a month. I'm a big *fan* of the > posting limits. :-) Do you suppose that these folks might be obsessive compulsive? :D :D :D
(Oh no, they probably believe that's the "spontaneity of TM.")
