I expect the length of the thread to be irrational; so perhaps that's not a problem.

On Oct 27, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

> I think the constraint is that it has to be a rational number. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric
> Hellman
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
> 
> I vote for changing the limit threshold to 
> 
>         PI * (eventual length of this meta-thread).
> 
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Doran, Michael D <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Can that limit threshold be raised?  If so, are there reasons why it
> should not be raised?
>> 
>> Is it to throttle spam or something? 50 seems rather low, and it's 
>> rather depressing to have a lively discussion throttled like that. Not 
>> to mention I thought I was simply kicked out for living things up 
>> (especially given my reasonable follow-up was where the throttling 
>> began).
>> 
>> Alex
>> --
>> Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic 
>> Maps
>> --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ 
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> ------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen 
>> ---
> 
> Eric Hellman
> President, Gluejar, Inc.
> 41 Watchung Plaza, #132
> Montclair, NJ 07042
> USA
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
> @gluejar