--- 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.
You may have limited interests. Others may have broader scopes of inquiry. If you don't find more than one or two posts of any person interesting, simply delete/skip them. And if you mean five essay, monologues, personal observations and sometimes rants, then five distinct topics of one poster each may be a natural limit for quality wrtiting. One-side expositions, "here is how I see it, or this is how it is" blurbs seem to be your preferred mode of "dialogue". But there is little or not dialogue in such pronouncents. Before you arrived and before massive bickering broke out (not necessarily a causal link, probably just a coincidence), the forum had many more interesting, usually cordial, often thought provoking exchanges. Often with more than five posts each were needed by the participants to fleshc out a topic. And if there were several intersting topics, another 3-5 posts might be spent discussing that. A year ago when this first issue came up, you were supporting a 10-post a day limit. After you settled down from a denoundcement of all limits as censorship. I am not suggesting no limits. Spairag and the Turq/Judy and other personal bickering wars proved limits were necessary. However, I find some others' arguments that the forum has improved with the 5-post limit is a strawman argumenet.I agree it has improved. But it is not a strictly a dual choice, this or that. Its a suggestion for the same 35 post limit a week, but allows for for periods of more back and forth evelution and exchange of ideas by occasionally allowing a few more posts within a one day perid. > 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. That pershaps says more about you than many posts in and of themselves. I find the Mareks, Curtis', even Judys of the world can easily have at least five interesting posts in a day. As can Peter and others they are on substantive topics. In the golden days, LBS, Mark, Phil Goldberg could easily have 10-15 or more interesting posts / exchanges, diologue pieces in a day. Though not every day. Ideas, responses to great posts, the stimulation of new perspectives to explore come in spurts. Somedays the great posters would post nothing. Other days, more than five. It probably averaged out to 35 or so a week. It wasn't 100 a week or of that scope, as i recall. Things have improved with the five-post limit, no doubt. But the state of the forum are far from the golden age of this list. Five posts, IMO, copntrains what used to be great about this list: lots of thought provoking, idea evolving, stimulating, cordial furerinig of ideas and perspectives through creative exchnage of views. Perhpas that doesn't appealto those who already are set in their views andjust like to let long monologues "rip" from their orfices. But for those of us who love good exhange to furthter our own thinking, open our perspectives, nd participate in human contact, the current state of the forum is saadly lacking, IMO. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
