I like the five post rule. In the past, some days I just didn't have the heart to scroll through 100 posts to find if any of my favorite posters had written. If I went away for the weekend, I'd come back to hundreds of posts, and these I mostly wouldn't even comb through, because there were so many new posts coming in to keep up with.
Also, just to be real, when I post something, DAMMIT I WANT TO SEE ITS TITLE FOR AT LEAST A FEW HOURS on the first page of the message board. When someone posts obsessively, all the other posts are pushed lower on the lists, and, I, as a writer who puts a lot of time into the posts, find that it hurts, sniff sniffle, to become off-page so quickly. Sue me, but it's a big reason for my voting for the five post rule. As for not having five important things to say per day.....yeah right...like that's true -- the problem is that really handling a concept with integrity requires bringing one's attention, again and again, to the subject at hand and note the new ideas that springboard off the central topic. This fleshing out takes a lot of dedication, rereading, editing, and passion for the material. I have lots more to say, but I just don't have the resources to generate a presentation of them that has any quality. As a writer, I'm always wanting to put something down that resonates for at least the near future. Everything gets dated fast, but I try to shoulder my way into the future by bullying past the Evil Forces Of Anachronism! Anyway, I try, and this takes time, and I like to see that my efforts are, for a few hours, on the front page menu of posts for the hungry minds here. Ego? Yep. Keep the five post rule. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When considering modifying the five-post-per-day > limit, might I pose a question to the group? > > In the *entire* time you have been on FFL, have > you *ever* known *anyone* to have more than five > interesting things to say per day? > > I certainly haven't. That includes myself, and > some of the best, most entertaining, and least > irksome writers here. I would actually have to > say that I've never found any individual poster > here to have more than two or three interesting > things to say during one 24-hour period. > > What I *have* noticed is that sometimes people > (including myself) get carried away with them- > selves and their own self importance to the > point that they *think* they have more than five > interesting things to say in one 24-hour period. > > My experience is that the inverse is more often > the case -- the MORE compelled the poster is to > "make his case" or "defend his stance" or "get > deeper into the issues," the LESS likely it is > that anyone else on the forum actually finds what > the poster has to say interesting, and the LESS > likely it is that they follow up and respond. > > Anyone else notice the same thing? > > It's almost like a "law of nature" -- in order to > feel that what one has to say is "important," and > that other people "need" to hear it, there has to > be a great deal of ego and small s self present. > And on the other side, among those being subjected > to these compulsive ego and small s self rants, the > more EGO they feel or intuit in a poster's rants, > the more likely they are to hit the Next key after > only a few sentences, and never bother to even read > it, much less reply. > > I guess this is just another way of saying that I > think that the five post limit is just about perfect. > The mere fact that you believe you have more than > five interesting things to say during one 24-hour > period should probably tell you that you don't. >
