--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > (Except, of course, for the rules that keep other > > people from doing or saying what he'd rather they > > didn't do or say--that's why he's such a strong > > supporter of the posting limits.) > > Ah, the expected delayed result of me reminding > folks WHY we have posting limits here. :-)
Says Barry, completely unable to respond to anything I've said except the one aside he quotes above. Actually what I was referring to is the way he keeps such careful track of my posts to make sure I don't go over 50 per week--even though, as he knows, since the limit was imposed, I've never done so deliberately and only a few times accidentally. But he keeps hoping, because then he'd have a whole week when he could lie up a storm without the lies being immediately exposed. And that, of course, is why he was in favor of the posting limit in the first place. <snip> > For those who weren't here then, the complaint was > that a few people (mainly these three, because when > the subject came up other overposters voluntarily > reduced their posts to less than half of what they > were doing before, while Judy and Shemp actually > *increased* their number of posts in response to > the requests from others to cut back) were trying > to "drown out" other voices on this forum by > posting so much. Seems impossible for Barry to make a post without at least one lie in it. In the paragraph above, we have three. (1) Nobody reduced their posts by half in response to the complaints; (2) we didn't--or at least *I* didn't--increase the number of my posts in response to the complaints; and (3) none of us was trying to "drown out" others on this forum. The very idea that anybody could do so even if they wanted to is absurd. So Barry, when are you going to admit your gigantic boo-boos about Raunchy's post?
