On Mar 23, 2007, at 11:50 AM, authfriend wrote: > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Seems to me that trashers and trashees are limited equally. > > Yes, but there are far fewer of the "trashees"--
As far as that goes, seems to me OW usually gave as good as he got. As far as I can recall, so far with the new system only he and Willytex have been the only ones to request that certain others be banned--both pro-TM, if you want to look at it that way. > especially now since three of them have left-- They're all adults, left of their own volition and can come back whenever they want. > and they haven't been the ones to initiate the > trashing. Of course not. > Consider: If five trashers spend one post each > attacking a trashee, if the trashee wants to > respond, it will take all five of the trashee's > allotted posts for the day to do so, but the > trashers each have four posts left. The trashers > know this. That's absolutely correct, Judy--kudos for figuring out the vast anti-TM conspiracy that Vaj, Barry, Lurk, Kurt and Dr, Pete were going to use. They were really hoping to get away with it, but you outsmarted them. :) > The posting limit, in other words, neatly hands > the advantage to the trashers. As it should, of course. :) > If either wants >> to waste their quota on bickering, at least the other >> will know that it will end soon. I'm hoping people will >> say, hey, I've only got X posts left, and I'd rather >> talk about something more interesting than so-and-so's >> latest dig. After all, are there really any new points >> to make in attacking or defending one another? > > This is all very rational, Rick, but it just isn't the > way most people operate. (And I strongly suspect your > perspective would be a bit different if you had been > the target of dishonest and wildly unfair trashing day > in, day out, for years.) As the moderator of this very contenious forum, I'd guess Rick has. > > If you *want* TM critics to be able to freely trash > TM supporters, and *want* the TM supporters not to > be able to respond, the posting limit is just the > ticket. Which is of course the idea, Rick was just hoping nobody would notice, since *everyone* who comes here divides the world into pro and anti-TM groups. I mean, is there really any other way to see things? :) > If you want, on the other hand, to stop the trashing > and the constant ill feeling and ugly atmosphere it > generates, the thing to do is sanction the trashers. I think that involves being content cop, which is sure to generate even more contentiousness. > If the trashing is stopped, or at least seriously > reduced, that will *automatically* reduce the overall > number of posts, without any posting limit required. Judy, just out of curiosity, have there been any attacks on you in the last few days? If so, I must have missed them. > As I've said before, in terms of the effects you say > you want, you've gone about this exactly backwards. > You've let this trashing go on for so long, it's going > to take some effort on your part now to stop it; the > posting limit is just a Band-Aid, and a pretty > ineffective one at that. (It also inhibits substantive > discussion and spontaneity. Sometimes offhand remarks > can generate the most interesting discussions. Posting > limits forestall that kind of serendipity.)
