No Consensus is the consensus not a waste!
plants flag firmly in Jesse's corner, the corner of No Consensus
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
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
JenP - Aug 20, 2004 8:33:29 am PDT #1925 of 10001
DavidS - Aug 20, 2004 8:33:40 am PDT #1926 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
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.)
Jesse - Aug 20, 2004 8:35:20 am PDT #1927 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
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.
JenP - Aug 20, 2004 8:36:41 am PDT #1928 of 10001
And yet? No Consensus leads the race.
(that's in response to Hec, who is refusing to be won over to my side. Sheesh.)
Wolfram - Aug 20, 2004 8:37:02 am PDT #1929 of 10001
Visilurking
27 just seems like such a juicy number, ripe with possibilities.
I'm with Hec. And I'd like to see some play on the 3 x 3 x 3 or 3 cubed ideas.
Fred Pete - Aug 20, 2004 8:37:20 am PDT #1930 of 10001
Ann, that's a ferret.
27 just seems like such a juicy number, ripe with possibilities.
It's 3 cubed, which we used at WX (which doesn't stop us from using here, just seems -- redundant).
But I can't think of anything else. Hec, what did you have in mind?
tommyrot - Aug 20, 2004 8:38:36 am PDT #1931 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
There was a kind of consensus about the one like "Didn't we already do the three squared one before?" (however that was phrased)
The best "27" reference we could come up with is just a reference to a previously used thread title.
Plus, "No consensus" is a gentle reminder that sometimes we fail.
tommyrot - Aug 20, 2004 8:39:47 am PDT #1932 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Hec, what did you have in mind?
Nooooooo! Don't encourage him!
We've already proposed a zillion titles. Do we need a zillion-and-oneth?
eta: Natter 26 will be ending soon. "No consensus" is the best consensus we have, and there's no time for new titles.
IMHO.
billytea - Aug 20, 2004 8:40:58 am PDT #1933 of 10001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
I'm with Hec. And I'd like to see some play on the 3 x 3 x 3 or 3 cubed ideas.
Three threes a threeing!
Topic!Cindy - Aug 20, 2004 8:48:39 am PDT #1934 of 10001
What is even happening?
Titles that got at least some support:
(next most) Natter 27: We already did a three cubed thing, didn't we?
Natter 27: Dead Rock Stars
Natter 27: We don't need a title.
(next next most) Natter 27: Three Threes A-... Threes... ing.
Natter 27!
Natter 27: And don't think I won't turn this car around.
So Natter 27: Stanley Bearsbreath McKneegrasper
(most) Natter 27: No consensus
From eyeballing (not counting) it looks like the "No consensus" proposal has gotten more support. It is not the best, but it's going to win--sorta like W, except what with the actual winning and all. And that's okay. We're good enough. We're smart enough. And gosh darn it, we Natter.