The 50 post / week limit has the potential to improve post quality and thereby maximize the utilization of one's attention. I far prefer seeing your name attached to 1 of 8 posts - 50 out of 412 of last week's total FFL posts; as opposed to seeing your name attached to only 1 of 10+ posts - 482 out of 5,152 of Oct., '06's total FFL posts, the last month FFL went without posting limits.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > Let's see if this analysis of posting frequency holds > up under examination. > > After Barry had made his first post, one (or more) > of his pals got to him quickly to let him know the > arithmetic he wanted us to let him do for us (because > we weren't smart enough to do it ourselves, you see) > wasn't quite on the up-and-up. He hastily got out in > front of that embarrassing situation, so there's no > need for me to go over it again. A narrow escape, that! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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. > > Actually one would have been more than sufficient. > Would've been fun, but there's plenty to correct > besides Barry's arithmetic. > > > > 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. > > Only 10 of them in the brawl with Curtis. > > Note what Barry doesn't mention--and what Curtis > won't tell you either: the brawl erupted because > Curtis got *his* panties in a bunch over an 11-word > one-liner of mine. He also made 10 posts in that > brawl over the same period. > > > > 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. > > Even this, of course, isn't right. Only if I'd > continued posting at the same rate would I have > been making 112 posts that week. > > In the case of the fight with Curtis, as he has > noted (to Barry, so Barry is aware of this), > Curtis pursued the fight so assiduously because > was snowed in over the weekend and had time on > his hands; and I usually make most of my posts > on the weekend. It's highly unlikely the fight > would have continued at the same rate into the > rest of the week. > > > 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%) > > From Barry's earlier post: > > > > I would remind people WHY the posting > > > limits were created in the first place. > > > Three posters -- two still present, one > > > now gone -- were essentially Out Of > > > Control and using their ability to post > > > as much as they wanted to "drown out" > > > others here. > > This is just silly. Nobody makes posts to "drown > out" other posters. It's impossible on the face > of it, not to mention undesirable (fewer posts to > respond to). To the extent other posters were > "drowned out," we'd be left talking to ourselves. > And unlike some other posters here, the three of > us don't often initiate threads or spam the group > with reams of copy-and-paste material. We're > interested in *conversation*. > > And the numbers themselves squash Barry's "drown > out" theory. Just for example, in October 2006 > there was a total of 5,152 posts in the group. If > the three of us made 30 percent of them, it means > there were around 3,606 posts made by others--so > they were hardly "drowned out." And my 50 posts > from Friday through Monday this past week were out > of a total of 410 posts for that period. Again, > nobody got "drowned out." > > The number of posts an individual makes has to do > with their interest, energy, and time, not with how > many posts anybody else makes--except that if others > are posting a lot, the individual has more posts to > respond to and might well therefore make *more posts > than s/he would otherwise*. > > In other words, it works exactly the opposite from > what Barry claims. > > > > It was not uncommon for them > > > to make hundreds of posts per week. > > False (unless Barry is speaking of the three of us > collectively). I often made more than 100 posts per > week, but never more than 150 or so and usually many > fewer. I doubt Shemp or Willytex ever went over 150 > a week either. > > When > > > asked to voluntarily cut down their posting > > > volume, all three categorically refused. > > False. Barry's been corrected on this before, so > he knows it isn't true. > > So: We can't depend on Barry's arithmetic; we can't > depend on his logic; we can't depend on his accuracy > in reporting facts. About all that's left for us to > depend on is his tendency to demonize his critics at > every opportunity. >
