points kravvy finger
Oh, shit. t flees
Young Simon: So... how'd the Independents cut us off? Young River: They were using dinosaurs.
'Safe'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
Katie M - Mar 03, 2003 5:16:24 pm PST #6384 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
John H - Mar 03, 2003 5:16:44 pm PST #6385 of 10001
Am I the only one who thinks having a long, detailed, sometimes-academic discussion isn't a wholly negative thing, thinks it's not an UnBuffistan thing to do?
Am I also the one thinking that people saying "oh dear, a very long detailed discussion about voting, I don't like it, we should just try and achieve consensus..." are saying something kind of illogical?
Trying to achieve consensus, that's what's happening now. The long detailed discussion thing.
Wow, maybe I've just convinced myself I'm against voting altogether. Because voting would cut this process way short... and I love everyone's commitment to this place and the energy they put into it.
PaulJ - Mar 03, 2003 5:18:06 pm PST #6386 of 10001
Am I the only one who thinks having a long, detailed, sometimes-academic discussion isn't a wholly negative thing, thinks it's not an UnBuffistan thing to do?
Speaking just for myself, it's one thing to have long and involved debates about the meaning of a soul in the Buffyverse, and another one to have long and involved debates about administrivia.
§ ita § - Mar 03, 2003 5:18:57 pm PST #6387 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Because voting would cut this process way short...
Voting would cut this process to under 4 days. Short? I'm not feeling that's short.
Mostly, right now, I just want to know who meant what by "simple majority". I already voted against this, and perhaps that's my my eyes are hurty.
John H - Mar 03, 2003 5:21:04 pm PST #6388 of 10001
Mostly, right now, I just want to know who meant what by "simple majority".
I think I agree.
Ironically, we have had our first vote and it seems a significant number of people didn't understand the ballot.
For a start, I seem to have voted for some guy called "Pat Buchanan" and I don't even know who he is...
amych - Mar 03, 2003 5:21:12 pm PST #6389 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
I meant 50%+1 by "majority".
Betsy HP - Mar 03, 2003 5:21:43 pm PST #6390 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
I'm afraid I saw "majority" and thought "plurality". Bad, bad reader. No dictionary.
§ ita § - Mar 03, 2003 5:23:52 pm PST #6391 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Betsy, isn't that the same as "the preponderant quantity or share"? Or are all my big words broken?
Betsy HP - Mar 03, 2003 5:24:40 pm PST #6392 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
Nope. The precise meaning of "majority" is "more than 50%". Plurality is "preponderant quantity or share."
§ ita § - Mar 03, 2003 5:25:53 pm PST #6393 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Actually, that quote was from Merriam Webster.
edit: as 3c) for majority