Anyway, have at it - to paraphrase Cindy, this bullshit isn't going to consense itself.
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
I urge Harry G. Frankfurt's excellent (and short) book On Bullshit as essential reading for all of you. In fact, it should be mandatory reading for anyone dealing with decision-making. My blog entry: [link]
and not necessarily the "true" bullshit consensus.
Faux bullshit?
Natter 35: Schrodinger's faux-bullshit consensus.
I'm fond of "digress".
Although "Natter 35: Schrodinger's Bullshit!" has a certain appeal, too.
Ok, you guys. I'm just lately interested in the processes underlaying "informal group assent". (Fred Pete, no apologies needed!)
I nominate...
Natter 35: Schrodinger's Bullshit!
Natter 35: Schrodinger's faux-bullshit consensus.
Hee, although better suited for a bureaublahblah thread title.
Although I think "How many bulls does it take to shit a consensus" may be ahead of it in that queue.
I really don't like the idea of profanity in the thread title.
I suggest not going with Schrodinger's Bullshit out of respect for people who read this at work.
Natter 35: Schrodinger's faux-bullcrap consensus.
eta:
Natter 35: Schrodinger's faux-penguin consensus.
Ditto. However, "Schrodinger's Natter" has a certain ring to it.