--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Just in case anyone is incapable of "doing the > math" and realizing what the result would be > of getting rid of the posting limits, I'll do > the math for you.
Ooopsie. :-) Even though it would be fun to see THE CORRECTOR waste five posts correcting my math, I'll do it myself. > This week one of the people *for whom the post- > ing limits were originally created* got her > panties in a bunch over Curtis and managed to > make 50 posts in slightly less than 75 hours. > That's basically 1.5 posts per hour, average. Really .6666 posts per hour. Assuming that she slept at least 24 of those 75 hours, that's an average of 1 post per waking hour. > If she were free to do what she used to do, > that means she would be making an estimated > 252 posts per week. More like 112 posts per week. Mea culpa. Which, interestingly, is pretty much "on the money given actual past history. During the month of October 2006 (the pre-posting limits "Bad Old Days"), FFL's top 3 posters (accounting for almost a third of all posts) were: 1. shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) 2. sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) 3. authfriend -- 482 (10.3%)
