Willow ,'Showtime'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I'm for DXM picking.
There was a kind of consensus about the one like "Didn't we already do the three squared one before?" (however that was phrased)
I remember four or five people liking that, which is pretty nearly a landslide in thread title selection. Seems a shame to waste a good number like 27 on "No Consensus." Soon we're going to get to numbers which have no cultural associations whatsoever. Or...one association like 57 and Heinz.
Natter 27: An Unholy Alliance of Actuaries and Australians
I just changed my tag. Now I have to go change it again?
Signed, the Unholy Alliance
Soon we're going to get to numbers which have no cultural associations whatsoever.
I'm looking forward to this. The numerical references are getting old, and kind of forced.
Come on, David, the people LOVE No consensus. Live it, love it.
Jesse, what's your platform?
Everyone wins!
Tiny Buffista flags for everyone!
No Consensus is the consensus not a waste!
plants flag firmly in Jesse's corner, the corner of No Consensus
Come on, David, the people LOVE No consensus. Live it, love it.
27 just seems like such a juicy number, ripe with possibilities. "No Consensus" displays a failure of imagination. (and consensus. Except for the people who have consensed upon "No Consensus" which is a kind of self-negating loop.)
Ah, but you're missing the inherent Buffista beauty of No consensus. With No consensus, you can remain secure in your knowledge that your chosen title was the One True Natter 27 Title, and everyone else is just crackpots.
And yet? No Consensus leads the race.
(that's in response to Hec, who is refusing to be won over to my side. Sheesh.)