--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > Anyway, if you care about not going over the limit, > > > a good text editor is a great way to achieve this. > > > > But as I said to start with, if you're not *obsessive* > > about going over the limit by a few posts, Yahoo's > > Search is likely to be as close as a hand-tally. > > care > Pronunciation: 'ker > Function: noun > Etymology: Middle English, from Old English caru; akin > to Old High German kara lament, Old Irish gairm call, > cry, Latin garrire to chatter > 1 : suffering of mind : GRIEF > 2 a : a disquieted state of mixed uncertainty, apprehension, > and responsibility b : a cause for such anxiety > 3 : painstaking or watchful attention > 4 : regard coming from desire or esteem > > I think that you're relating to definitions 1 and 2. > Zennists and nerds might relate to definition 3. I > relate to definition 4. What you call obsession I > call etiquette.
But as I said, the point of the limit, as I understand it, is to keep people from making a number of posts per week that some feel have the effect of monopolizing the conversation. It's a little difficult to argue that 40 posts per week constitutes such a monoply, but 35 posts does not. It seems to me that as long as folks keep reasonably close to the arbitrary number of 35, the purpose of the limit is being served. In other words, "care" in definition 4, in my view, should not require keeping to the arbitrary number of 35; "etiquette" is satisfied by respecting the purpose of the limit, which is not to do what some feel has the effect of monopolizing the conversation. In that context, focusing on the arbitrary number of 35 to the point where one accuses those who go over it by a few posts of being out of control, not respecting the community, feeling that they are so "special" that the rules don't apply to them, etc., amounts to obsession and fulfills the criteria for definitions 1 and 2. In contrast, the purpose of the current guideline concerning personal attacks is to eliminate all such attacks, not to limit them to an arbitrary number. Repeatedly launching personal attacks in the face of the guideline is equivalent to ignoring the posting limit entirely and as such is a gross violation of etiquette, demonstrating lack of self- control, lack of respect for the community, feeling that one is so "special" that the rules don't apply to one, etc. To obsess about others going over the posting limit by a few posts while repeatedly flouting the guideline barring personal attacks would seem to indicate, at best, confusion over the very nature of community rules and one's obligation to observe them, as well as a seriously deficient sense of proportionality.
