--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm tempted to try New's 35 > post-per-week suggestion (or was it mine?), but opposition to that is almost > unanimous.
Really? I have seen few if any post specifically oppose an AVERAGE of five posts per day. The common repsonse appears to be a tired strawman argument that "gee, five posts a day is better than the chaos of a few months ago, ergo five posts a day is the best of of alll possible worlds." Such simple analysis ignores that insightful and valuable spontaneous back and forth dialogue is reduced with such limits. And posts tend to become longer and less digestible. Hardly the best of all possible systems. I tend to agree with Bhairitu -- the limits were imposed to quell the out of control instincts of 3-4 posters with a universal fiat. Its using a sledge hammer to solve a problem better solved with a more discrete and focused instrument. How pray tell does a (mostly )self-monitored average of five posts a day take away from the improvement seen from a strict (dare I say anal) imposition of 5 posts per day? Yet an average system, taking nothing away, adds a lot - IMO --- promoting a more interesting exchange of ideas -- and enabling shorter, more coherent, focused posts. Both are good things and are currently being driven out of FFL with the new kidergarten level laws. And a lot of the strawman support for a strict five day limt comes from lurkers. I guess they like a readers digest version of discussion and debates -- its easier to absorb. But as a reader and poster, I would like to more dialogue. And I can simple ignore or delete those posters i find little value from. And in an AVERAGE of 5 posts a day system, total posts would be the same. It would simply accomodate the more natureal ebbadn flow of discussions.
