 |
 |
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