I agree with alex. If someone blatantly continues to violate concensus rules, why waste time "administering" to their rudeness. Three strikes and you are out.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > By now, every participant of FFL sees that once the 5 post a day > > rule > > > > was temporarily lifted that a wave of posting and expression was > > > > visited upon us. > > > > > > > > Forget the 5 post a day rule; forget the 35 post a week rule. > > > > > > > > Let's get back to the way it was. Yes, the price that we may > > have to > > > > pay is that spairaig may come back to his 50 one-line posts a day > > but > > > > all you have to do is invest the 3 seconds it will take you to > > skim > > > > over his name in the message list and you're done! > > > > > > > > Of course, you'll want to read every single one of MY 50 posts a > > day > > > > and you'll want to hang on every word that I write. > > > > > > > > I'm precious. > > > > > > When Rick put you on moderated status because you refused to abide > > by > > > the new rule, I found it annoying to have to keep track of how many > > > posts per day to approve. And, I fully intend to leave it up to Rick > > > to count and keep track of people's weekly post counts. Personally, > > I > > > would rather there were no posting limit, simply because enforcing > > it > > > is a nuisance. But, if there is going to be a limit, it would be my > > > preference that willful violators be given one warning, and then > > > booted from FFL if they continue to break the rule. > > > > > > > Fuck you, Adolf. > > Grow the hell up you spineless anonymous baby. >
